What is the end point of the pro-life movement?

[Niggle]

Morning after pill. There is no excuse for a woman to have an abortion these days because of unwanted pregnancy. ONLY if there is a birth defect or some surprise issue which points to the woman's health being at risk. At this point the woman's needs outweigh those of the baby.

You have to be a complete idiot to have an unwanted pregnancy these days IMO. Either you are not aware of your menstrual cycle, you are not using birth control properly or have not prepared a safety net for yourself.

I will make exceptions for teenagers but only because they are complete idiots in this regard.

A regular woman has no excuse.

See the recent stories about the birth control pills that are being recalled as defective, then try that "logic" again.

My best friend's sister got pregnant on birth control pills; it was not known at the time that certain antibiotics could negate them. She went through hell and high water to have that baby, who was born three months early due to the effects of her mother being on birth control pills while pregnant. Both came awfully close to dying several times. While I applaud her determination, I would have understood if she had allowed the miscarry to save her own life.

You're also failing to account for the child who is raped by her father who gets pregnant. Tell the twelve-year-old she's at fault for getting pregnant, I dare you.

Stop pretending this is black and white. Your perfect little world does not exist. It never will while you're dealing with human beings with such a wide variation in intellect, physical reactions to medications, life circumstances, etc.

[Niggle]

Why aren't these pro life people taking a stand against organ transplants from beating heart cadavers?

Some of them do, and let's not sidetrack the thread with the idiocies of people who don't understand transplants (my mother had a liver transplant, and the responses I got from some coworkers was astounding).

[Niggle]

Snip.
But some hardcore pro-choicers will cling to the notion that a woman has the right to abort even so, and try to argue that if a woman doesn't want the child, they have no responsibility to permit to grow to term for someone else to take care of. And for this group, all the arguments about unconscious violinists and the like will be exposed for the rhetoric it was, and the power that comes with taking a life will be clung to even as society at large says "no".

I am happily awaiting that day -- and honestly hoping that latter group is very, very small.

You're also forgetting the (hopefully small) number of pro-lifers who will immediately ban the uterine replicators as being unnatural and against GOD!!!

Pray that the middle ground wins the laws.

[Niggle]

I believe these two entities should have the same status.

Hence, the point of my turning the question around. I'm not sure whether, or how much, a rape victim should be punished for killing her baby. The point is that I think the punishment should be the same whether she cuts her up or exposes her; in both cases, she's killed a human being. Whether that should have a severe punishment or not is open to interpretation and the circumstances.

I'm sorry; trying to force a rape victim to carry her attacker's baby to term is far more cruel than anything that happens to the tiny collection of cells that would be terminated by a merciful abortion.

You forget (I hope) that the rape victim could be a young girl raped by her father/uncle/teacher/etc. My niece started menstruating at the age of eight. Yes, eight years old. She could have gotten pregnant at that point if someone had raped her. You want to force an eight-year-old to carry a rape child to term?

[angrysoba]

What is the end point of the pro-life movement?

Death from old-age.


Has that been said, already?

[AvalonXQ]

You're also forgetting the (hopefully small) number of pro-lifers who will immediately ban the uterine replicators as being unnatural and against GOD!!!

Pray that the middle ground wins the laws.

Absolutely.

[truethat]

I think it already, for the most part, is a worst case scenario- a last resort.



.

Then you are choosing to believe a false belief.

Almost half of all abortions that are had each year are REPEAT abortions. Of course don't expect the people in this thread to care about this fact. It is far much easier to pretend we're saving a street urchin from a violent rape who got pregnant by accident.


Statistics speak for themselves.

Half of all abortions are by women who state they were not using birth control when they got pregnant.

Half of all abortions are repeat abortions.


You do the math.

Statistics speak for themselves. So do people who want to ignore them and promote the "Women are Victims" agenda.

http://www.guttmacher.org/pubs/gpr/10/2/gpr100208.html



About half of all U.S. women having an abortion have had one previously. This fact—not new, but dramatically underscored in a recent report from the Guttmacher Institute on the characteristics of women having repeat abortions—may surprise and concern some policymakers, even prochoice ones. However, policymakers should be more disturbed by the underlying fact that the unintended pregnancy rate in the United States is so high, and that so many women experience repeat unintended pregnancies. Some of these pregnancies end in abortion and some end in unintended births. Indeed, it is not uncommon for a woman to experience both of these outcomes, as well as one or more planned births, during her lifetime.
Reducing repeat abortion must start with reducing repeat unintended pregnancy, which goes back to the basic challenge of helping women prevent unintended pregnancies in the first place. In that regard, the almost 7,500 family planning clinics across the country certainly are doing their share, given that unintended pregnancy prevention is their primary mission. Beyond that, both abortion providers and providers of services to women giving birth also contribute, since contraceptive counseling and the provision of a birth control method upon request are standard components of high-quality postabortion and postpartum care.


But apparently when I suggest that.....I'm insane or unrealistic. Um No. I just expect women to be responsible for not getting pregnant in the first place since ............they are the only ones who can do it.

The nerve of me. I know.



ETA for all the "busted birth control pills" and other such drama. The standby of "always use a condom when you have vaginal intercourse" works remarkably well. But someone how this is not acceptable. Let's see MILLIONS of unwanted babies are avoided each year by the use of condoms. But no.......let's pretend the thousands of accidents are the 'more real' answer.

[Bill Thompson]

Quite aside from the ethics of abortion, the "beginning of life" arguments, and all that...
I wonder just what the ultimate goal of the pro-life folks might be. What do they expect to happen if, as would seem to be their desire, abortion would be generally outlawed in the US?
At present, we are told there are about 1 million abortions annually in the US. Do the pro-life folks consider that there would be a million more smiling, happy infants born each year?


Here is a thought. How about 2 million people that found something else to do instead of have sex with someone you did not what to parent a baby with. That would be a good goal.

[truethat]

Here is a thought. How about 2 million people that found something else to do instead of have sex with someone you did not what to parent a baby with. That would be a good goal.


No Bill Thompson. Don't you know that people will explode and die if they don't have sex. They HAVE TO! LOL j/k Great post. :cool:

[thaiboxerken]

Yes, think how many more lives Planned Parenthood could save if they weren't so insistant on killing the unborn.


Feel free to prove that Planned Parenthood is insistent on encouraging or performing abortion.

[thaiboxerken]

Here is a thought. How about 2 million people that found something else to do instead of have sex with someone you did not what to parent a baby with. That would be a good goal.

Sex is EVIL!! Sex is only for making babies!!! Enjoying sex is for the devil!! Women should have their clitoris removed, so they don't enjoy procreation!!

[Polaris]

Sex is EVIL!! Sex is only for making babies!!! Enjoying sex is for the devil!! Women should have their clitoris removed, so they don't enjoy procreation!!

Oh, but were that only a joke and not the end point of the pro-life movement.

[thaiboxerken]

Oh, but were that only a joke and not the end point of the pro-life movement.

Sad, but true. They deny, while at the same time supporting people like Rick Santorum that do say it. Bill Thompson says the same things I summed up, but just not in so many word.

[AvalonXQ]

Feel free to prove that Planned Parenthood is insistent on encouraging or performing abortion.

What evidence would you accept?

[thaiboxerken]

What evidence would you accept?

Statistical evidence. Maybe a memo or statement from leaders of Planned Parenthood.

[AvalonXQ]

Statistical evidence.

What statistical evidence would show this?

I mean, really, it's about the efforts that Planned Parenthood takes to encourage pregnant women to seek them out, and to encourage those pregnant women to abort. How would you expect that to show up in the statistics?

We can talk about the fact that PP administered 1,113,460 pregnancy tests and 329,446 abortions in 2010, which means 30% of the pregnancy tests resulted in abortion.

In contrast, they gave a ridiculously miniscule 841 adoption referrals and administered prenatal services to a more respectable 31,096 patients. That means a pregnant woman walking into PP is ten times as likely to get an abortion as to receive another pregnancy service from PP.

But, hey, maybe most pregnant women walk into PP expecting to get an abortion (because that's what their advertisements and branding encourage women to expect from them). Maybe they refer most pregnant women who don't want abortions to prenatal services elsewhere (because, if you actually want your child, you're no longer their target customer base).

What we really need are stats about their advertisements, and about the sorts of things they tell women who come to them looking for help. I don't know that there is good stats on those; lots of anecdotes, but no good stats.

What is it you're looking for?

[Silly Green Monkey]

Maybe people go to PP for abortions because pro-lifers have convinced them that's all PP does? Why else would Catholics in this region park ultrasound trucks outside PP clinics?

[AvalonXQ]

Maybe people go to PP for abortions because pro-lifers have convinced them that's all PP does? Why else would Catholics in this region park ultrasound trucks outside PP clinics?

That actually sounds like an excellent tactic -- show her the fetus is a real person to identify with, rather than a generic blob of cells.
Does it get the message across?

[Polaris]

That actually sounds like an excellent tactic -- show her the fetus is a real person to identify with, rather than a generic blob of cells.
Does it get the message across?

It is a generic blob of cells. A person presupposes a personality, a though process, some kind of emotions to connect with, etc. It isn't a person any more than iron ore is a butter knife.

[ponderingturtle]

I'm sorry; trying to force a rape victim to carry her attacker's baby to term is far more cruel than anything that happens to the tiny collection of cells that would be terminated by a merciful abortion.

You forget (I hope) that the rape victim could be a young girl raped by her father/uncle/teacher/etc. My niece started menstruating at the age of eight. Yes, eight years old. She could have gotten pregnant at that point if someone had raped her. You want to force an eight-year-old to carry a rape child to term?

The church exomunicated a child's mother and doctor for aborting her twins when she was 8. Of course her stepdad who raped her was ok in their book as everyone knows how seductive 8 year olds can be.

So yes lots of people think that, at least when it is your niece not their daughter.

[ponderingturtle]

Maybe people go to PP for abortions because pro-lifers have convinced them that's all PP does? Why else would Catholics in this region park ultrasound trucks outside PP clinics?

Or there are simply no one else providing such services in their area. So women who would have other options for prenatal care go there for abortions.

[Silly Green Monkey]

That actually sounds like an excellent tactic -- show her the fetus is a real person to identify with, rather than a generic blob of cells.
Does it get the message across?

You don't really think everyone who goes to PP is pregnant do you? Of those who are pregnant, and seeking an abortion, DO YOU REALLY THINK THEY HAVEN'T THOUGHT ABOUT IT AT ALL?

[AvalonXQ]

The church exomunicated a child's mother and doctor for aborting her twins when she was 8. Of course her stepdad who raped her was ok in their book as everyone knows how seductive 8 year olds can be.

She was nine, but yes, that was really terrible.

The RCC's position and behavior on this issue is insane.

[AvalonXQ]

You don't really think everyone who goes to PP is pregnant do you?
Of course not. PP does more contraceptive implants/procedures than it does pregnancy tests.

Of those who are pregnant, and seeking an abortion, DO YOU REALLY THINK THEY HAVEN'T THOUGHT ABOUT IT AT ALL?
I'm sure some have thought it through, and know what they want, while others are scared and confused and looking for guidance.
I also know that, too often, PP tries to downplay the presence and role of the fetus in the discussion, to encourage the woman to do the "right thing" and abort her. PP folks have been caught way too often fudging the medical facts and pushing the abortion option.

[Mark6]

Let's be honest -- the end point of the abortion debate is already well-recognized.

We will develop techniques for placental transplant and uterine replication, which will allow a fetus to safely grow to term outside of any woman's body.

When that day happens, the true colors of both sides of the debate will be clear. The vast, vast majority of pro-lifers will breathe a sigh of relief because it really is about the baby, not about oppressing the woman, and will be thrilled that there's a way to keep the baby alive even if the mother doesn't want her.
Well-recognized? Really?

While I would applaud the situation you just described, I never heard it articulated outside of science fiction. I doubt that a single person who does not read SF (whether they are pro-choice or pro-life) has ever put it in those terms. "Well-recognized" it ain't.

And considering that a major party presidential candidate Rick Santorum not long ago said that birth control (never mind abortion) "destroys moral fabric of this country", I think you are a bit optimistic about the "vast majority of pro-lifers" who would agree with you and me that such artificial wombs are a good thing. Number of Americans who really view sex as "necessary evil" only excusable for procreation, and pregnancy and childbirth as punishment for said evil, is fairly large.

[AvalonXQ]

Number of Americans who really view sex as "necessary evil" only excusable for procreation, and pregnancy and childbirth as punishment for said evil, is fairly large.

I would expect that it's a very small number. Do we have a survey or other statistic for this?

[Mark6]

I would expect that it's a very small number. Do we have a survey or other statistic for this?
No statistic that I can think of, but the fact that a presidential candidate can express such views and still get double-digit votes in a primary is telling.

I expect the number to be in a few millions. Which is small with respect to entire population (~1%), but large in absolute terms.

[sgtbaker]

Let's be honest -- the end point of the abortion debate is already well-recognized.

We will develop techniques for placental transplant and uterine replication, which will allow a fetus to safely grow to term outside of any woman's body.

When that day happens, the true colors of both sides of the debate will be clear. The vast, vast majority of pro-lifers will breathe a sigh of relief because it really is about the baby, not about oppressing the woman, and will be thrilled that there's a way to keep the baby alive even if the mother doesn't want her.

Most pro-choicers will breathe a sigh of relief, too, and Planned Parenthood will become an organization of fetal transplant services, abortion becoming a sad and rare medical necessity carried out at actual hospitals as needed.

But some hardcore pro-choicers will cling to the notion that a woman has the right to abort even so, and try to argue that if a woman doesn't want the child, they have no responsibility to permit to grow to term for someone else to take care of. And for this group, all the arguments about unconscious violinists and the like will be exposed for the rhetoric it was, and the power that comes with taking a life will be clung to even as society at large says "no".

I am happily awaiting that day -- and honestly hoping that latter group is very, very small.

Call me hardcore but it still comes down to telling a woman what she can and can't do with her body. I agree with it as an option but not a forced practice.

[sgtbaker]

Of course not. PP does more contraceptive implants/procedures than it does pregnancy tests.


I'm sure some have thought it through, and know what they want, while others are scared and confused and looking for guidance.
I also know that, too often, PP tries to downplay the presence and role of the fetus in the discussion, to encourage the woman to do the "right thing" and abort her. PP folks have been caught way too often fudging the medical facts and pushing the abortion option.

I hope you have evidence for this beyond claims from Glenn Beck.

[Safe-Keeper]

That actually sounds like an excellent tactic -- show her the fetus is a real person to identify with, rather than a generic blob of cells.
Does it get the message across?Yes, if you want to be manipulative in an effort to persuade a woman to not have an abortion, for then to not give her any kind of support at all once she's given birth... then yes, it's an excellent tactic:).

[AvalonXQ]

No statistic that I can think of, but the fact that a presidential candidate can express such views and still get double-digit votes in a primary is telling.

It doesn't tell us how many people agree with him, though. Santorum is a possible candidate for me, and I certainly don't share his views on birth control.

Also, he's made it clear he wouldn't support federal or state legislation against birth control, so that makes his position easier to stomach.

Finally, I'm not even convinced that Santorum himself holds this view you described about sex being a necessary evil.

[AvalonXQ]

Yes, if you want to be manipulative in an effort to persuade a woman to not have an abortion, for then to not give her any kind of support at all once she's given birth... then yes, it's an excellent tactic:).

Sorry, what's your evidence that the support provided to mothers by crisis pregnancy centers after birth doesn't exist?

It's abortion clinics, far more than anti-abortion organizations, that fail to help women who choose not to abort, or even provide post-operation support to women who choose to abort.

The idea that anti-abortion groups neglect women is one based strongly in rhetoric and not backed up by facts -- like the resources spent by these groups on new mothers. It's organizations like PP that are interested in abortions but not the women having them.

[thaiboxerken]

What statistical evidence would show this?

I mean, really, it's about the efforts that Planned Parenthood takes to encourage pregnant women to seek them out, and to encourage those pregnant women to abort. How would you expect that to show other pregnancy service from PP.



What is it you're looking for?
Something other than a baseless claim.or is this another claim not meant to be taken as refusal?

[Moss]

The point that seems to be currently missing is this: Abortions happen. Even when they are banned. As they have been in Western Culture for centuries.
As long as they are legal there are standards, regulation and control over who does them how. Banning abortions will only diminish the control over how they take place. There will be no counseling at all. Which endangers the women again. Will it stop the abortions? Probably not.

[catsmate1]

I think most anyone on here knows what I say when I say I say exceptions. You apparently don't. Health of the mother would be an exception.
What do you consider an appropriate level of risk to the mother's health to justify this exception?

[AvalonXQ]

TBK, in cutting out the center part of my post, you ended up gluing the halves of two different sentences together.

[catsmate1]

I mean, really, it's about the efforts that Planned Parenthood takes to encourage pregnant women to seek them out, and to encourage those pregnant women to abort. How would you expect that to show up in the statistics?
While this accusation is often levelled at various women's health providers I have never any evidence to justify it, do you have such evidence? That PP or other organisations "encourage" women who visit them to choose induced abortion rather than other options.

[catsmate1]

Ah, well that's a simpler question. My position is based on two premises:

A) A newborn baby has the right to life.
B) There is no relevant distinction between a newborn baby and a fetus.

The presence of a fetus has significant health implications for the women bearing it, therefore your premises are note equivalent.

[catsmate1]

The end point of the pro-choice movement is dead fetuses. Everyone else is unimportant.
No. The health and survival of women is important. To some people at least.

[catsmate1]

You are aware that there are pro-life organizations that provide all of these services, yes?
It's disingenuous to suggest that, because an anti-abortionist refuses to support an organization that makes quite a bit of money performing abortions, that the anti-abortionist opposes the other activities of that organization.

Tell you what, you'll give me $20,000, and I'll use $15,000 to support Al Qaeda and $5,000 to feed starving children in Afganistan. No? Why do you oppose feeding starving children?!
Could you provide some details of such organisations please? I have never encountered any anti-abortion organisation that also, when one burrows into their ethos, doesn't oppose artificial birth control.
The lie: pro-lifers don't care about women.
Many don't. For example in this thread (http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?t=222170) one anti-abortion god botherer lies about the health risks of induced abortion (and cites others who lie) to justify his ideological position that abortion is wrong. If people were to act on those lies women would die.

[catsmate1]

You're also forgetting the (hopefully small) number of pro-lifers who will immediately ban the uterine replicators as being unnatural and against GOD!!!

Pray that the middle ground wins the laws.
I doubt that the number would be small; there's a distinct link between opposing legal abortion and pushing their vision of god's will.

[AvalonXQ]

Edit: On second thought, engaging with catsmate's shotgun posts, responding to every post at once, has no value, so I'm not going to get started.

[catsmate1]

I'm sorry; trying to force a rape victim to carry her attacker's baby to term is far more cruel than anything that happens to the tiny collection of cells that would be terminated by a merciful abortion.
I've seen someone in that situation; I'd happily have killed any god botherer who tried to stop her.
Somewhat related link (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Attorney_General_v._X).
You forget (I hope) that the rape victim could be a young girl raped by her father/uncle/teacher/etc. My niece started menstruating at the age of eight. Yes, eight years old. She could have gotten pregnant at that point if someone had raped her. You want to force an eight-year-old to carry a rape child to term?
I've encountered some activists who would do so.

[catsmate1]

Here is a thought. How about 2 million people that found something else to do instead of have sex with someone you did not what to parent a baby with. That would be a good goal.
Gee what a useful contribution to a serious debate on a serious topic.
:rolleyes:

[catsmate1]

What evidence would you accept?
What evidence have you got? You made the claim.

[catsmate1]

Of course not. PP does more contraceptive implants/procedures than it does pregnancy tests.
Hmmmm. Perhaps that's related to the lack of other sources for such procedures? Possibly due to pressure for the various "sex is bad" god botherers?


I'm sure some have thought it through, and know what they want, while others are scared and confused and looking for guidance.
I also know that, too often, PP tries to downplay the presence and role of the fetus in the discussion, to encourage the woman to do the "right thing" and abort her. PP folks have been caught way too often fudging the medical facts and pushing the abortion option.
Evidence for these assertions?

[catsmate1]

The idea that anti-abortion groups neglect women is one based strongly in rhetoric and not backed up by facts -- like the resources spent by these groups on new mothers.
Evidence for this assertion? Perhaps a comparison of spending by the various anti-abortion pressure groups on:


propaganda against legal abortion, including political donations
support to anti-abortion protesters, including legal expenses for those charged with crimes
campaigning for better child welfare resources
direct support of mothers

[catsmate1]

Just to be clear, an anecdote that a pro-lifer misrepresents the medical facts to a woman, justifies the statement that pro-lifers don't care about women?
Not just one anti-abortion activist but many, and several organisations peddling the same loes to support their attempts to force their opinions on others.

I want to make sure, before we bring up the well-known anecdotes of abortion clinics misrepresenting the medical facts to women to encourage them to abort.
"Well known" but seemingly difficult to demonstrate, as you've utterly failed to show any evidence for this.
Edit: On second thought, engaging with catsmate's shotgun posts, responding to every post at once, has no value, so I'm not going to get started.
Right................

So you won't be providing any evidence for your various assertions then
How surprising.:rolleyes:

[AvalonXQ]

Is there not some rule here against thread spamming?

[Silly Green Monkey]

Obviously not, I've seen it happen all the time. Report it if you are bothered.

The posts are separate replies, you don't have to reply to them all or in separate posts.

[Silly Green Monkey]

\
I'm sure some have thought it through, and know what they want, while others are scared and confused and looking for guidance.\

I do want to answer this though, it's not about what they want, it's about what they need. it's easier to blow off wants and whims than needs, which to undergo a medical procedure on a baby they most likely want, they'd have to need it.

[MattusMaximus]

The OP got me thinking. I just finished watching Ken Burns's excellent documentary on Prohibition, and I see a lot of parallels between the "drys" and the modern-day anti-choice movement. The main one is this: they both seem to have/had some kind of weird utopian type of view that when Roe v. Wade is overturned (when Prohibition was enacted) that society will simply just magically get better.

And in the case of Prohibition, how'd that whole "let's legislate morality" thing work out? The utopian dream went completely to hell in a handbasket when reality imposed itself.

If the anti-choicers ever get their way and they are ever actually able to push through their most extreme ideas (personhood amendments, banning birth control, arresting doctors/women for abortions, etc) then that sort of thing will spell the beginning of the end for the anti-choice movement in this country, just as the "drys" ended up being their own worst enemy. People in this country simply won't stand for that sort of crap; just look at the massive blowback against Komen for defunding Planned Parenthood if you don't believe me.

I almost think it is inevitable. The same disconnected-from-reality religious zeal which will lead to certain victories (and thus embolden these loons) will also be their ultimate downfall. Just remember the Terri Schiavo fiasco.

[MattusMaximus]

The point that seems to be currently missing is this: Abortions happen. Even when they are banned. As they have been in Western Culture for centuries.
As long as they are legal there are standards, regulation and control over who does them how. Banning abortions will only diminish the control over how they take place. There will be no counseling at all. Which endangers the women again. Will it stop the abortions? Probably not. No chance in hell.

Ftfy

Anyone who believes that defunding PP, or pushing through personhood amendments, or overturning Roe v. Wade will actually serve to drastically decrease or eliminate abortion is a complete fool.

[catsmate1]

Is there not some rule here against thread spamming?
Since when does replying to your posts and asking you to justify your unsupported assertions constitute "spamming"?
FYI this is my 16th post in this thread, you have 42.

[Redtail]

Here is a thought. How about 2 million people that found something else to do instead of have sex with someone you did not what to parent a baby with. That would be a good goal.

Here's a better one. How about all of the people whining about abortions ensure that the children that are born have safe, healthy, well educated lives before worrying about a 2cm clump of cells that might start looking kinda humanoid in a few more weeks?

[catsmate1]

Here's a better one. How about all of the people whining about abortions ensure that the children that are born have safe, healthy, well educated lives before worrying about a 2cm clump of cells that might start looking kinda humanoid in a few more weeks?
Nah, not going to happen.

[Silly Green Monkey]

The end result of pro-life can be seen already in Venezuela, where doctors must save the life of the baby over that of the mother. Women with ectopic pregnancies, like my mother's first one, must wait until the baby ruptures the uterine tube and dies, then the doctors will try to save her from the resulting infection. My mother had the tube removed long before there was a chance of rupture, because the life of a baby whose stupid choice of where to implant meant it had no future.

Avalon, do you think I am simple, unable to run a risk assessment for my own health, incapable of calculating the money and time required to raise a child? Why do you think you can make those decisions for me?

[truethat]

Why do people keep trying to talk about pregnant 9 year olds, rape victims and people whose vasectomy's failed, as if these are the "norm" in abortion.

Once again. Half of all abortions are by women who were not using birth control. And Half of all abortions were also women who had already had an abortion.


So that shows that a large number of women are using abortion as birth control instead of not getting pregnant in the first place.

On top of this we get people saying sex is only for having babies. Or having sex is bad.

These arguments are stupid and avoid the reality of the situation.


The reality is that half of all abortions are by women not using birth control AT ALL. And half of all abortions are repeat abortions.

This shows women being irresponsible. Not victims.

[Skepticemea]

Why do people keep trying to talk about pregnant 9 year olds, rape victims and people whose vasectomy's failed, as if these are the "norm" in abortion.

Once again. Half of all abortions are by women who were not using birth control. And Half of all abortions were also women who had already had an abortion.


So that shows that a large number of women are using abortion as birth control instead of not getting pregnant in the first place.

On top of this we get people saying sex is only for having babies. Or having sex is bad.

These arguments are stupid and avoid the reality of the situation.


The reality is that half of all abortions are by women not using birth control AT ALL. And half of all abortions are repeat abortions.

This shows women being irresponsible. Not victims.Ban alcohol cos people gets drunk, innit.

[Dessi]

This shows women being irresponsible. Not victims.
I'm not sure about other people on this forum, but I don't perceive "women are irresponsible" as a criticism of abortion. If its permissible, it shouldn't matter what motivations people have for using it, shouldn't matter how responsibly or irresponsibly people use birth control, etc. Its a red herring issue at best.

If there's a strong argument against abortion, its going to have something to do with it being repugnant in some way, ultimately because a fetus has some set of morally relevant characteristics which gives it moral value.

[AvalonXQ]

I'm not sure about other people on this forum, but I don't perceive "women are irresponsible" as a criticism of abortion. If its permissible, it shouldn't matter what motivations people have for using it, shouldn't matter how responsibly or irresponsibly people use birth control, etc. Its a red herring issue at best.
It shouldn't matter, but it's made to matter by the constant refrain of "pro-lifers don't care about women". For pro-choicers, the focus on the abortion debate is on women as victims who are "helped" by abortion, and on anti-abortionists' desire to deny them this "help".
When that's the rhetoric, it is certainly reasonable to point out that most of these women aren't victims; they made choices.

If there's a strong argument against abortion, its going to have something to do with it being repugnant in some way, ultimately because a fetus has some set of morally relevant characteristics which gives it moral value.
I agree.

[truethat]

I'm not sure about other people on this forum, but I don't perceive "women are irresponsible" as a criticism of abortion. If its permissible, it shouldn't matter what motivations people have for using it, shouldn't matter how responsibly or irresponsibly people use birth control, etc. Its a red herring issue at best.

If there's a strong argument against abortion, its going to have something to do with it being repugnant in some way, ultimately because a fetus has some set of morally relevant characteristics which gives it moral value.

Way to gloss over murdering someone. It doesn't matter how you get there if you get there? Sounds a lot like Hitler saying "the ends justifiy the means" but damn now I've gone and Godwinned the thread.

Not that it was worth saving anyway.

[AvalonXQ]

Way to gloss over murdering someone.

She didn't do that at all. In fact she was making the opposite point -- either abortion is immoral or it's not, because either the fetus is valuable or it's not, regardless of how the woman got into that position. It's a reasonable point.

[truethat]

It shouldn't matter, but it's made to matter by the constant refrain of "pro-lifers don't care about women". For pro-choicers, the focus on the abortion debate is on women as victims who are "helped" by abortion, and on anti-abortionists' desire to deny them this "help".
When that's the rhetoric, it is certainly reasonable to point out that most of these women aren't victims; they made choices.


I agree.

Yep. This is the part of the debate that drives me nuts. The way the "feminists" who are supposedly about the empowerment of women, tend to treat women like helpless rabbits who can't think for themselves. Any sort of responsibility or culpability is batted away in seconds. We start dragging out the rape victims and pregnant by incest 12 year olds.

This is the perpetuation of the "women as vicitms" meme. And it's annoying as all hell. If you can't deal with getting pregnant then don't have vaginal intercourse unless you always use a condom.


Why this is some mean horrible thing to say to women, is beyond me.

Funny though, the same "feminists" will scream this at men without a moment's hesitation.

[bookitty]

Yep. This is the part of the debate that drives me nuts. The way the "feminists" who are supposedly about the empowerment of women, tend to treat women like helpless rabbits who can't think for themselves. Any sort of responsibility or culpability is batted away in seconds. We start dragging out the rape victims and pregnant by incest 12 year olds.

This is the perpetuation of the "women as vicitms" meme. And it's annoying as all hell. If you can't deal with getting pregnant then don't have vaginal intercourse unless you always use a condom.


Why this is some mean horrible thing to say to women, is beyond me.

Funny though, the same "feminists" will scream this at men without a moment's hesitation.

Oh yes, denying that a woman can choose abortion as the responsible option is so empowering. Better to remove that choice and tell her what to do with her own body. That doesn't render her helpless at all.

And "murdering a person." Really? Can a 12 week old fetus get a social security card? No. Why? Because it is legally not a person.

[AvalonXQ]

And "murdering a person." Really? Can a 12 week old fetus get a social security card? No. Why? Because it is legally not a person.

Today she's not, that's true. She should be.
I don't agree with Dred Scott v. Sandford either. Do you?

[truethat]

She didn't do that at all. In fact she was making the opposite point -- either abortion is immoral or it's not, because either the fetus is valuable or it's not, regardless of how the woman got into that position. It's a reasonable point.


I don't think so. If abortion is a medical procedure it would be akin to giving someone a "kidney transplant" and if a person is a life long drug abuser or drinker then I don't think they should be allowed to get the kidney. However the moral thing to do in society is to give the guy the kidney. If we have enough kidneys for everyone then everyone can get one.

We don't not provide treatment for lung cancer patients who have been life long smokers.

The moral choice we make as a society is no questions just take care of the patient. However in each of the cases no one is murdering someone else to take care of the medical issue.

In abortion we are. We are making a decision that the woman's life is more important than the child's life. And so to me abortion should only be used in an emergency. But of course that is not reality.

Some people say that demonizing women who have abortions is unfair and wrong. I believe it is right to do it to women who don't use birth control and have multiple abortions. They should be shamed. They should feel bad. Maybe then they would be more responsible.

It's one thing to make a choice to kill one child to save the mother. Quite another to kill three children. I'd rather just kill the mother.

[Cactus Wren]

Sorry, what's your evidence that the support provided to mothers by crisis pregnancy centers after birth doesn't exist?

Check out this article (http://www.thenation.com/article/shotgun-adoption) at The Nation on how so-called "crisis pregnancy centers" work hand-in-glove with adoption agencies, to browbeat and guilt-trip and coerce (white) women into giving birth and then relinquishing their babies:

"They come on really prolife: look at the baby, look at its heartbeat, don't kill it. Then, once you say you won't kill it, they ask, What can you give it? You have nothing to offer, but here's a family that goes on a cruise every year."

[ ... ]

... Jordan was rushed through signing relinquishment papers by a busy, on-duty nurse serving as notary public. As soon as she'd signed, the [adoptive] couple left with the baby, and Jordan was taken home without being discharged. The shepherding family was celebrating and asked why Jordan wouldn't stop crying. Five days later, she used her last $50 to buy a Greyhound ticket to Greenville, where she struggled for weeks to reach a Bethany [Christian Center, the adoption agency] post-adoption counselor as her milk came in and she rapidly lost more than fifty pounds in her grief.

When Jordan called Bethany's statewide headquarters one night, her shepherding mother answered, responding coldly to Jordan's lament. "You're the one who spread your legs and got pregnant out of wedlock," she told Jordan. "You have no right to grieve for this baby."

[Cactus Wren]

The reality is that half of all abortions are by women not using birth control AT ALL. And half of all abortions are repeat abortions.

This shows women being irresponsible. Not victims.

== "She had sex, so she must be punished."

[Cactus Wren]

Oh yes, denying that a woman can choose abortion as the responsible option is so empowering. Better to remove that choice and tell her what to do with her own body. That doesn't render her helpless at all.

And "murdering a person." Really? Can a 12 week old fetus get a social security card? No. Why? Because it is legally not a person.
Today she's not, that's true. She should be.Able to get a Social Security card? How?


I don't agree with Dred Scott v. Sandford either. Do you?Poisoning the well (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Poisoning_the_well)

[bookitty]

Today she's not, that's true. She should be.
I don't agree with Dred Scott v. Sandford either. Do you?

Didn't we already cover the ridiculousness of a slavery comparison. If you are going to use overblown rhetoric, then you must allow the comparison of forced birth as slavery. A woman who is forced by law to carry a child to term is enslaved - her body is no longer her own and her health is put at risk for no benefit to herself. She is affected both socially and financially, with no self gain. She becomes nothing but a womb, no matter how that might affect her.

[bookitty]

== "She had sex, so she must be punished."

A quick pause to note how surreal this is on a board that had so many people defending the idea that a man need not offer even his name to a strange woman before propositioning her.

[AvalonXQ]

Check out this article (http://www.thenation.com/article/shotgun-adoption) at The Nation on how so-called "crisis pregnancy centers" work hand-in-glove with adoption agencies, to browbeat and guilt-trip and coerce (white) women into giving birth and then relinquishing their babies:

That's a pretty disturbing anecdote. Better to browbeat, guilt-trip, and coerce (black) women into getting abortions, like PP does, right?

[bookitty]

That's a pretty disturbing anecdote. Better to browbeat, guilt-trip, and coerce (black) women into getting abortions, like PP does, right?

Evidence, please.

[AvalonXQ]

Didn't we already cover the ridiculousness of a slavery comparison.

We didn't, but the comparison works pretty well to me.

One group has absolute power over another group, and assert that power by claiming the other group has no rights.
Advocates for the helpless group (abolitionists, anti-abortionists) are generally condemned as being "religious zealots", and the plight of the powerful group is emphasized -- their livelihood and autonomy is threatened if we dare give these worthless non-persons the same consideration we give them.

[truethat]

Didn't we already cover the ridiculousness of a slavery comparison. If you are going to use overblown rhetoric, then you must allow the comparison of forced birth as slavery. A woman who is forced by law to carry a child to term is enslaved - her body is no longer her own and her health is put at risk for no benefit to herself. She is affected both socially and financially, with no self gain. She becomes nothing but a womb, no matter how that might affect her.

Really? Then she might not want to get pregnant then huh? And if she's forced in this tortured existence, and how horrible for her, why are you so against telling women NOT TO HAVE SEX if they don't have birth control?

Somehow this woman found herself in this situation because she just "happened to get pregnant?"


That's slavery? That is an insult to slavery. You should be ashamed of yourself.

[Cactus Wren]

That's a pretty disturbing anecdote. Better to browbeat, guilt-trip, and coerce (black) women into getting abortions, like PP does, right?

Cite?

[Cactus Wren]

Really? Then she might not want to get pregnant then huh? And if she's forced in this tortured existence, and how horrible for her, why are you so against telling women NOT TO HAVE SEX if they don't have birth control?

== "She had sex, so she must be punished."

[AvalonXQ]

Evidence, please.

Here (http://www.unfairchoice.info/pdf/FactSheets/ForcedAbortions.pdf)'s a fun document on the subject.

64% of abortions involve coercion, and this sometimes includes threats of physical abuse from partners—or even parents—who don’t want the child. Women and girls have been physically pushed into clinics and restrained when
they tried to escape their abortion. Women have endured forced miscarriages, which sometimes result in murder—the leading killer of pregnant women. Other women resort to abortion because they believe it is the only way to stop the abuse.

[truethat]

You guys are kidding right? You are aware that the first PP type clinics were set up as part of the Eugenics movement.

They also encourage black women to get sterilized. But no. So typical for this board. You have a story about ONE girl who regretted giving up her child for adoption. It's filled with sadness and sorrow for the girl. All about the poor girl who was a victim. The poor ONE GIRL. And everyone acts like that's a total fact about the adoption industry.

It's sad the bias people have and don't even realize.

[catsmate1]

The end result of pro-life can be seen already in Venezuela, where doctors must save the life of the baby over that of the mother. Women with ectopic pregnancies, like my mother's first one, must wait until the baby ruptures the uterine tube and dies, then the doctors will try to save her from the resulting infection. My mother had the tube removed long before there was a chance of rupture, because the life of a baby whose stupid choice of where to implant meant it had no future.

Avalon, do you think I am simple, unable to run a risk assessment for my own health, incapable of calculating the money and time required to raise a child? Why do you think you can make those decisions for me?
Given that ectopic pregnancies are non-viable anyway this is ludicrous even by general "pro-life" standards.
Again women suffer and die for someone elses's ideology.:mad:

[bookitty]

Really? Then she might not want to get pregnant then huh? And if she's forced in this tortured existence, and how horrible for her, why are you so against telling women NOT TO HAVE SEX if they don't have birth control?

Somehow this woman found herself in this situation because she just "happened to get pregnant?"


That's slavery? That is an insult to slavery. You should be ashamed of yourself.

I was responding to hyperbole with hyperbole to show that it is ridiculous. It's right there in the first paragraph.

[AvalonXQ]

== "She had sex, so she must be punished."

Haven't we already discussed the difference between "punishment" and "consequences"?

If I decide to get drunk, a hangover isn't a punishment; it's a consequence of your behavior that you have to deal with.

Having to deal with the obligations toward a child you've created, born or unborn, isn't a punishment. It's a consequence. Refusing to allow certain immoral actions to be taken (abortion, abandonment, neglect, abuse) to the resulting child also isn't "punishing" anyone.

[AvalonXQ]

We've really gotten past the OP discussion and deep into the bowels of the abortion debate, haven't we?

All right, I'm backing away. Good discussion. Thanks for the insights.

[bookitty]

You guys are kidding right? You are aware that the first PP type clinics were set up as part of the Eugenics movement.

They also enocourage black women to get sterilized. But no. So typical for this board. You have a story about ONE girl who regretted giving up her child for adoption. It's filled with sadness and sorrow for the girl. All about the poor girl who was a victim. The poor ONE GIRL. And everyone acts like that's a total fact about the adoption industry.

It's sad the bias people have and don't even realize.

Evidence? Also "PP type" does not equal Planned Parenthood.

Many organizations in the past were informed by the social mores of the past. As those social mores have changed, so have the organizations. Even the Catholic Church has changed in response to modern attitudes.

[catsmate1]

Why do people keep trying to talk about pregnant 9 year olds, rape victims and people whose vasectomy's failed, as if these are the "norm" in abortion.
Because these situations happen and the blanket restrictions on abortion you appear to favour would effect such situations.

So that shows that a large number of women are using abortion as birth control instead of not getting pregnant in the first place.
Spend more on proper sex education and access to sexual medical services.


This shows women being irresponsible. Not victims.
So forcing them to carry to term, and endangering their lives and health is OK then?:jaw-dropp

[bookitty]

Here (http://www.unfairchoice.info/pdf/FactSheets/ForcedAbortions.pdf)'s a fun document on the subject.

Unbiased evidence, please.

[catsmate1]

Way to gloss over murdering someone. It doesn't matter how you get there if you get there? Sounds a lot like Hitler saying "the ends justifiy the means" but damn now I've gone and Godwinned the thread.

Not that it was worth saving anyway.
That's your opinion.
Oh and don't forget Hitler opposes access to abortion.

[catsmate1]

== "She had sex, so she must be punished."
Yeah there's a lot of that around.
Women must take responsibility for sex (few anti-abortion activists seem as caught up with men's sexual actions) but let's limit access to knowledge and services to assist them. And if they get pregnant, well lock them up until they give birth (unless they die first of course). It's their own fault.
:rolleyes::mad:

[catsmate1]

That's a pretty disturbing anecdote. Better to browbeat, guilt-trip, and coerce (black) women into getting abortions, like PP does, right?
I assume you'll be providing evidence for this assertion?

[truethat]

Really some of the posts in this thread are shockingly stupid.

I was going to reply to them. But then I thought that it would be a complete waste of time.

Asking women to be responsible is akin to murder in this thread. The same posters who would have no qualms at all at forcing a man to raise a child he doesn't want.

So lets see. The girl in the story decides to take her baby back from the adoptive parents.

HEY GUESS WHAT? After a paternity test, the father of the child is then forced to pay child support for a baby he never wanted in the first place. It doesn't matter at all if he doesn't want to deal with the consequences. People won't let the man off the hook? Why not? If it's all about not enslaving someone to a life they don't choose?

Nope the guy has to pay for 18 years for a baby he doesn't want. And if he complains people would say "then don't have unprotected sex."

But of course telling women this is wrong. Seriously. Stepping away before I say something I regret.

[bookitty]

Because these situations happen and the blanket restrictions on abortion you appear to favour would effect such situations.


Spend more on proper sex education and access to sexual medical services.


So forcing them to carry to term, and endangering their lives and health is OK then?:jaw-dropp

Of course. If women are stupid sluts who can't keep their legs shut, forcing them to carry a child is the only way their existence can be justified.

The problem is that many forced-birth proponents can't see themselves ending up pregnant. or they are privileged enough to raise a child if that should happen. They know nothing of the lives of women which do not mirror their own. Because they would never get pregnant, women who do are inferior.

And when they do get pregnant and can't keep it:
"The Only Moral Abortion is My Abortion (http://mypage.direct.ca/w/writer/anti-tales.html)"
When the Anti-Choice Choose

"My first encounter with this phenomenon came when I was doing a 2-week follow-up at a family planning clinic. The woman's anti-choice values spoke indirectly through her expression and body language. She told me that she had been offended by the other women in the abortion clinic waiting room because they were using abortion as a form of birth control, but her condom had broken so she had no choice! I had real difficulty not pointing out that she did have a choice, and she had made it! Just like the other women in the waiting room."

[Cactus Wren]

Here (http://www.unfairchoice.info/pdf/FactSheets/ForcedAbortions.pdf)'s a fun document on the subject.

You expect anyone to take seriously a document from www.unfairchoice.info? You really don't think they might have just the faintest inclination to slant the data?

[truethat]

Why do you have to be a "stupid slut" Bookitty? Is that how you'd teach your daughter about birth control? Would you say "don't be a stupid slut and keep your legs closed" OR would you say "If you think you are ovulating it is extremely important for you to use birth control."

Or would you say to your daughter "Always use a condom when you have sex. Unprotected sex can lead to disease and unwanted pregnancy."

Seriously then we wonder why so many young people get pregnant. If you have to get hostile to consider practicing SMART and HEALTHY sexual practices. My GOD the shame of it all.

Really really really.........just shaking my head over here.

[Cactus Wren]

Haven't we already discussed the difference between "punishment" and "consequences"?Having to deal with the possibility of pregnancy is "consequences". Forcing a woman to continue a pregnancy she doesn't want is "punishment".

If I decide to get drunk, a hangover isn't a punishment; it's a consequence of your behavior that you have to deal with.And no doubt you think that someone who chooses to get drunk must be prevented from ameliorating the consequences. No aspirin, no orange juice, no Alka-Seltzer: you must DEAL with those consequences.

[catsmate1]

Here (http://www.unfairchoice.info/pdf/FactSheets/ForcedAbortions.pdf)'s a fun document on the subject.
Ah yes the Elliot Institute, an anti-abortion group. Part of the attempts by David Reardon (he of the fake doctorate) to restrict action to legal abortion services by whatever means.
A man well known for lying about the psychological effects of induced abortion. He's the one who fabricated "Post Abortion Stress Syndrome" after all. Someone who, since 1983, has claimed to be "one of the leading experts on the aftereffects of abortion on women" despite an utter lack of training or education in any relevant field (he's an electrical engineer) and who's few subsequent publications have been shredded as inaccurate, biased and methodologically flawed. I suggest you read Brenda Major's rebuttal of his rubbish. She's a real doctor too.

Reardon on pregnancy resulting from incest:
“Unlike pregnancies resulting from rape, most incest pregnancies are actually desired, at least at a subconscious level, in order to expose the incest.”

Interesting document you cite BTW. Especially the tendency to define "coerce" as anything that a woman takes into account when making a decision to have or not have an abortion. And the lack of sources and citations.:rolleyes:

[catsmate1]

You guys are kidding right? You are aware that the first PP type clinics were set up as part of the Eugenics movement.

They also encourage black women to get sterilized. But no. So typical for this board. You have a story about ONE girl who regretted giving up her child for adoption. It's filled with sadness and sorrow for the girl. All about the poor girl who was a victim. The poor ONE GIRL. And everyone acts like that's a total fact about the adoption industry.

It's sad the bias people have and don't even realize.
Still no evidence I notice, just assertions.

[catsmate1]

We've really gotten past the OP discussion and deep into the bowels of the abortion debate, haven't we?

All right, I'm backing away. Good discussion. Thanks for the insights.
I take it this means you won't be providing any evidence to support your numerous assertions then?
:rolleyes:

[truethat]

What evidence are you requesting? The evidence I have provided here is ignored. That Half of all abortions are had by women who report they were using NO BIRTH CONTROL when they got pregnant. And half of all abortions are REPEAT abortions.

I posted the evidence for that and everyone just skipped right over it because it doesn't match your bias.


Also just because you are completely uneducated about this, doesn't mean there aren't statistics and information for you to find. I didn't post it because I can't believe there are people who still don't know about this.

It's like you asking me to post "evidence' for the Japanese internment.


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Margaret_Sanger

http://www.citizenreviewonline.org/special_issues/population/the_negro_project.htm

http://www.cfpeople.org/SeminarianWritings/Sem036.html



Eugenics
As part of her efforts to promote birth control, Sanger found common cause with proponents of eugenics, believing that they both sought to "assist the race toward the elimination of the unfit."[72] Sanger was a proponent of negative eugenics, which aims to improve human hereditary traits through social intervention by reducing reproduction by those considered unfit. Sanger's eugenic policies included an exclusionary immigration policy, free access to birth control methods and full family planning autonomy for the able-minded, and compulsory segregation or sterilization for the profoundly retarded.[73][74] In her book The Pivot of Civilization, she advocated coercion to prevent the "undeniably feeble-minded" from procreating.[75] Although Sanger supported negative eugenics, she asserted that eugenics alone was not sufficient, and that birth control was essential to achieve her goals.[76][77][78]
In contrast with eugenicists who advocated euthanasia for the unfit,[note 9] Sanger wrote, "we [do not] believe that the community could or should send to the lethal chamber the defective progeny resulting from irresponsible and unintelligent breeding."[79] Similarly, Sanger denounced the aggressive and lethal Nazi eugenics program.[74] In addition, Sanger believed the responsibility for birth control should remain in the hands of able-minded individual parents rather than the state, and that self-determining motherhood was the only unshakable foundation for racial betterment.[76][80]
Complementing her eugenics policies, Sanger also supported restrictive immigration policies. In "A Plan for Peace", a 1932 essay, she proposed a congressional department to address population problems. She also recommended that immigration exclude those "whose condition is known to be detrimental to the stamina of the race," and that sterilization and segregation be applied to those with incurable, hereditary disabilities.[73][74][81]

Her purpose was also to get blacks to stop "breeding" because it was "detrimental to the stamina of the [human] race."

[bookitty]

Why do you have to be a "stupid slut" Bookitty? Is that how you'd teach your daughter about birth control? Would you say "don't be a stupid slut and keep your legs closed" OR would you say "If you think you are ovulating it is extremely important for you to use birth control."

Or would you say to your daughter "Always use a condom when you have sex. Unprotected sex can lead to disease and unwanted pregnancy."

Seriously then we wonder why so many young people get pregnant. If you have to get hostile to consider practicing SMART and HEALTHY sexual practices. My GOD the shame of it all.

Really really really.........just shaking my head over here.

You really don't understand sarcasm, do you. I'll keep that in mind.

You know, we do have actual scientific studies that show us the fallibility of all forms of birth control.

Having already been in a similar situation, I know that if I had a daughter, she would be well informed. If she became pregnant and wanted an abortion, I would help her with that as well. After, we may discuss what led to pregnancy, or not depending on the situation. I most certainly wouldn't assume from the start that she had done something wrong. Nor would my help come with a heaping dose of condemnation.

[bookitty]

What evidence are you requesting? The evidence I have provided here is ignored. That Half of all abortions are had by women who report they were using NO BIRTH CONTROL when they got pregnant. And half of all abortions are REPEAT abortions.

I posted the evidence for that and everyone just skipped right over it because it doesn't match your bias.


Also just because you are completely uneducated about this, doesn't mean there aren't statistics and information for you to find. I didn't post it because I can't believe there are people who still don't know about this.

It's like you asking me to post "evidence' for the Japanese internment.


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Margaret_Sanger

http://www.citizenreviewonline.org/special_issues/population/the_negro_project.htm

http://www.cfpeople.org/SeminarianWritings/Sem036.html

So half of all abortions happen even though women are using birth control. Perhaps we could discuss that aspect of it sometime.

ETA: Please show evidence that the social attitudes and mores which led to Japanese internment are still affecting legal policy. Then do the same for Sanger's views.

Pro-tip: Things have changed in the last 75 years.

[truethat]

Once again glossing right over what you don't want to see.


Let's stay on what I said. HALF of all abortions are had by women who admit they weren't using birth control. Half of all abortions are also repeat abortions.

What does that say to you? Of course there are always going to be women who need abortion. That is why it should be a safe, rare medical procedure.

But this is not what shows. What shows is that half of these women are having sex irresponsibly.

HALF of them. And they admit it. So why don't you want to look at that instead constantly focusing on those "poor helpless victims" or other nonsense you always trot out for the discussion.

Why don't you want to look at the facts and the numbers of who is really having these abortions.

No it's much better to pretend that people are evilly trying to force a ten year old incest victim to carry the baby to term.

It's sickening really, how some people refuse to have a real conversation about the actual facts.

[bookitty]

Once again glossing right over what you don't want to see.


Let's stay on what I said. HALF of all abortions are had by women who admit they weren't using birth control. Half of all abortions are also repeat abortions.

What does that say to you? Of course there are always going to be women who need abortion. That is why it should be a safe, rare medical procedure.

But this is not what shows. What shows is that half of these women are having sex irresponsibly.

HALF of them. And they admit it. So why don't you want to look at that instead constantly focusing on those "poor helpless victims" or other nonsense you always trot out for the discussion.

Why don't you want to look at the facts and the numbers of who is really having these abortions.

No it's much better to pretend that people are evilly trying to force a ten year old incest victim to carry the baby to term.

It's sickening really, how some people refuse to have a real conversation about the actual facts.


Ok, let's have some actual facts. Please show evidence that repeat abortions are indicative of abortion as primary birth control. First you would need to show how much time passed between them and that no birth control was used in the interim.

For example, a 15 year old girl gets pregnant because abstinence-only education has not taught her to protect herself (as the higher pregnancy rates of teens only taught abstinence only sex ed will attest.) 15 years later, as a married woman, she becomes pregnant again within 2 months of giving birth to her first child because she didn't re-start her birth control pills while breast feeding.

In this case, that same person would count as using birth control, not using birth control and a repeat abortion. But you can't show that she is using abortion as a primary means of birth control. by trying to correlate the two you are poisoning the well.

I would also like to see statistics on why that 50% is not using birth control. Is it lack of access, lack of education, lack of funds, or apathy? if you're going to claim that all women who did not use birth control are guilty of the latter, I would like to see evidence of that. Otherwise, you're merely poisoning the well.

[Dessi]

But this is not what shows. What shows is that half of these women are having sex irresponsibly.
Even if pro-choicers agree that 50% of women have irresponsible sex, they will argue that women should have access to abortion anyway. See here (http://forums.randi.org/showpost.php?p=7991301&postcount=310):
I'm not sure about other people on this forum, but I don't perceive "women are irresponsible" as a criticism of abortion. If its permissible, it shouldn't matter what motivations people have for using it, shouldn't matter how responsibly or irresponsibly people use birth control, etc. Its a red herring issue at best.

If there's a strong argument against abortion, its going to have something to do with it being repugnant in some way, ultimately because a fetus has some set of morally relevant characteristics which gives it moral value.

Seriously, start by asking yourself why human life matters in the first place, figure out the reasons, and work forward to determine whether those reasons are logically inclusive or exclusive to human life at all stages of development.

If you can do that much, I guarantee you that you'll go much farther in abortion debates than discussing who has irresponsible sex. People can and will rationalize having abortions for any reason. If you don't have a good idea of why human life even matters in the first place, you can't even begin to form an argument against having abortions no matter how selfish and stupid someone's reasons are.

[truethat]

Personally I am not interested in that nuance. Although I do understand why you are. And I'm not interested in going further per se, to sort of understand their perspective.

What I'm sick of, is painting women as victims. I'm sick of the double standard that women are not supposed to be responsible for themselves. And I'm sick of pregnancy and children being used as excuses to mooch money off the government, cry victim, force men to be fathers when they don't want to be.

It makes my skin crawl. It completely causes me disgust towards these kinds of women. So when it is propagated in other discussions I would zoom in on it.

[Polaris]

Really some of the posts in this thread are shockingly stupid.

Ahhhh, irony.

Nope the guy has to pay for 18 years for a baby he doesn't want. And if he complains people would say "then don't have unprotected sex."

Well cock-a-doodle doo, two wrongs make a right after all! :rolleyes:

[bookitty]

Personally I am not interested in that nuance. Although I do understand why you are. And I'm not interested in going further per se, to sort of understand their perspective.

What I'm sick of, is painting women as victims. I'm sick of the double standard that women are not supposed to be responsible for themselves. And I'm sick of pregnancy and children being used as excuses to mooch money off the government, cry victim, force men to be fathers when they don't want to be.

It makes my skin crawl. It completely causes me disgust towards these kinds of women. So when it is propagated in other discussions I would zoom in on it.

Nothing worse than a self-loather.

So you don't want women to be "victims' but you won't trust them to know when abortion is the responsible choice?

[Faustus]

Originally Posted by Bikewer
Quite aside from the ethics of abortion, the "beginning of life" arguments, and all that...
I wonder just what the ultimate goal of the pro-life folks might be. What do they expect to happen if, as would seem to be their desire, abortion would be generally outlawed in the US? The vast majority of people who want abortion outlawed don't see it as the endgame but as one component of a social agenda that would include national implementation of abstinence-only sex "education", repeal of gay rights and equality and perhaps creating criminal penalties for homosexuality, and the cultural shaming of women who are unmarried, working, sexually active, and/or childless. In a nutshell, the creation of a culture in which all social behavior is judged and controlled by a religious right-wing government and it's supporters.



Originally Posted by Bikewer
At present, we are told there are about 1 million abortions annually in the US. Do the pro-life folks consider that there would be a million more smiling, happy infants born each year?
That's pretty much how they see it, yeah.


Originally Posted by Bikewer
Or, that perhaps folks would simply not engage in "recreational" sex? That they would only have sex if and when they wanted to procreate? And thus, no unwanted pregnancies... Again, yeah. They think that with enough abstinence-only education, no talk of condoms or birth control, and government control over sexual images in the media, sex can be all but eliminated except under circumstances that they deem acceptable.


Originally Posted by Bikewer
Do the pro-lifers feel that a return to "back alley" abortions would be a good thing? I'm sure some do. I've actually heard extremists say things like "any woman who would abort their baby deserves to die in an alley" and worse, so that argument wouldn't affect the hard-core activists at all.


Originally Posted by Bikewer
That women of means would simply go elsewhere, like Mexico or Canada (we can be sure there would be a booming obstetrics business...) while poor women would use unsafe methods or carry the unwanted child to term where any number of unlovely circumstances might come into play? (abandonment, infanticide, illegal baby-brokering....) When has economic inequality and it's effects on the poor ever bothered the right wing? That's what we're dealing with here, a religious right that sees the rich as anointed by God and better than the poor and thus deserving of access to privileges that others aren't. If their teenage daughter gets pregnant, it's a special case and an abortion a necessity but for anyone else it's an abortion is either frivolous or a moral outrage. It's hypocrisy pure and simple.


Originally Posted by Bikewer
The adoption system is already strained, we are told. A quantum increase in unwanted children would strain it further...
I listened to several young people who were participating in the latest pro-life march in Washington on NPR. All wanted Roe V.Wade overturned. None seemed to have any notion of the implications...
Most of them were raised in families that believed that if only the religious right social agenda could be implemented, all the "unholy" goings-on in this country would be eliminated and the issue wouldn't even come up anymore. They don't think there will be any long-term implications, at least not for the "good" people.




Many people who call themselves "pro-life" and frown on abortions are just like me. They don't like them but realize they will always happen (Roe vs. Wade will never be overturned) and many are necessary, but too many are not. Many of those folks, like me, are also atheists, but still believe that life is too sacred to be ended for reasons of convenience.

Here's an assessment of where the issue stands in today's America:
Washington, DC (LifeNews.com) – A new national poll of Americans finds a large majority take one of three pro-life positions opposing all or most abortions. The survey also finds more than one-quarter of people who say they are "pro-choice" on abortion really take a pro-life position against abortions.

[...]

In fact, the Marist poll found 5 percent of people who self-identified as "pro-choice" said abortions should never be permitted, 3 percent said only to save the life of the mother and 20 percent said only in cases of the life of the mother, rape or incest.


In other words, 28 percent of Americans who call themselves "pro-choice" actually take a pro-life position opposing 98 percent or more abortions.


The poll also revealed that only 15% of those describing themselves as "pro-choice" favored unrestricted abortion throughout a pregnancy as another 71 percent said they favored more abortion limits.

[MUCH MORE HERE (http://www.lifenews.com/2008/10/14/nat-4446/)]


Those who push for abortions even up to the exit from the womb keep the argument alive because of the insecurity they feel, and of course there are abortion hustlers

If the adoption industry is too strained, it's not because there are too many children available for adoption, it's because there are so few, and people have to wait a long time. Because of the scarcity, attorneys become far more involved than if there were a surplus.

Is this just another thread started to make the point that people who have qualms about abortion are intolerant, super-religious, pro-life zealots, who want to impose their religious ideas on everyone else, including abstinence only? In case you forget, we had “Sex Education” taught in schools, even back in the dark ages of the 50’s.

I responded to this post because it illustrates exactly that frame of mind.

[bookitty]

Many people who call themselves "pro-life" and frown on abortions are just like me. They don't like them but realize they will always happen (Roe vs. Wade will never be overturned) and many are necessary, but too many are not. Many of those folks, like me, are also atheists, but still believe that life is too sacred to be ended for reasons of convenience.

Here's an assessment of where the issue stands in today's America:


Those who push for abortions even up to the exit from the womb keep the argument alive because of the insecurity they feel, and of course there are abortion hustlers

If the adoption industry is too strained, it's not because there are too many children available for adoption, it's because there are so few, and people have to wait a long time. Because of the scarcity, attorneys become far more involved than if there were a surplus.

Is this just another thread started to make the point that people who have qualms about abortion are intolerant, super-religious, pro-life zealots, who want to impose their religious ideas on everyone else, including abstinence only? In case you forget, we had “Sex Education” taught in schools, even back in the dark ages of the 50’s.

I responded to this post because it illustrates exactly that frame of mind.

Your poll is from LifeNews.com "an independent news agency devoted to reporting news that affects the pro-life community." it is biased.

You say that too many abortions are not necessary but don't qualify "necessary." Just as you don't explain what you mean by "for reasons of convenience."

Because these are not explained, I can only assume that you, like many pro-lifers, have decided what you would be able to handle and have extended that to the people who have abortions. Your line in the sand is the right one, everything else is "unnecessary." This is a very common, human thing to do but it makes for very poor legal policy.

[Faustus]

Your poll is from LifeNews.com "an independent news agency devoted to reporting news that affects the pro-life community." it is biased.
You say that too many abortions are not necessary but don't qualify "necessary." Just as you don't explain what you mean by "for reasons of convenience."

Because these are not explained, I can only assume that you, like many pro-lifers, have decided what you would be able to handle and have extended that to the people who have abortions. Your line in the sand is the right one, everything else is "unnecessary." This is a very common, human thing to do but it makes for very poor legal policy.

It was a Maris poll being quoted and analyzed there; it was not their poll.
As for "conveinence" and "necessity" I think every woman has to examine her own heart, and she should be encouraged not discouraged from doing that. It's her decision, and I would not take that from her.

[catsmate1]

It was a Maris poll being quoted and analyzed there; it was not their poll.

Commissioned, and paid for by, the Knights of Columbus. I also note that the exact questions asked aren't noted.

[Silly Green Monkey]

I think every woman should have a competent physician to advise her on what she needs to survive.

[Moss]

Many of those folks, like me, are also atheists, but still believe that life is too sacred to be ended for reasons of convenience.


Not trying to start an argument (but probably will either way): What do you mean by "life is sacred"?

[bookitty]

It was a Maris poll being quoted and analyzed there; it was not their poll.
As for "conveinence" and "necessity" I think every woman has to examine her own heart, and she should be encouraged not discouraged from doing that. It's her decision, and I would not take that from her.

Then I apologize for misrepresenting your opinion.

[catsmate1]

Personally I am not interested in that nuance. Although I do understand why you are. And I'm not interested in going further per se, to sort of understand their perspective.
No that's rather obvious. You don't care about the suffering your beliefs would cause to others.

[catsmate1]

What evidence are you requesting? The evidence I have provided here is ignored. That Half of all abortions are had by women who report they were using NO BIRTH CONTROL when they got pregnant. And half of all abortions are REPEAT abortions.

I posted the evidence for that and everyone just skipped right over it because it doesn't match your bias.


Also just because you are completely uneducated about this, doesn't mean there aren't statistics and information for you to find. I didn't post it because I can't believe there are people who still don't know about this.

It's like you asking me to post "evidence' for the Japanese internment.


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Margaret_Sanger

http://www.citizenreviewonline.org/special_issues/population/the_negro_project.htm

http://www.cfpeople.org/SeminarianWritings/Sem036.html





Her purpose was also to get blacks to stop "breeding" because it was "detrimental to the stamina of the [human] race."
Did you copy and paste that directly from Conservapedia? Did you bother to check the sources for bias?

Hmm, Citizens Review Online, right-wing policy group that denies AGW and whose "article" was derived from Live Action, the anti-abortion group whose lies about PP were covered previously, and Concerned Women of America, another anti-abortion group1
Your second source is Christ's Faithful People, "A Confraternity of Roman Catholics promoting doctrinal orthodoxy".
:rolleyes::rolleyes::rolleyes:


SUP]1[/sup] They also oppose all contraception, all gay sex (including consentual acts in private holmes), deny homosexuals have been discriminated against in the pat ans oppose anti-discrimination measures, support prosecution of companies providing hotel porn, oppose comprehensive sex education, support prayer in public schools and oppose HPV vaccination. The usual god botherer agenda.

[Faustus]

Not trying to start an argument (but probably will either way): What do you mean by "life is sacred"?

I mean that by us, human beings, life must be considered inviolate. If human life as a whole is not considered as being sacred or inviolate, then no one except those who can defend it with sufficient force, wealth, influence, or personal status can retain it, or keep it with certainty, if not now then at some future time when it has become devalued.

I don’t see it as a religious component. If a person chooses to take their own life, then that is their choice. If a person takes the life of another person, then, as a price, that person forfeits the sanctity of their own life. I see that as a legitimate deterrent against wanton acts of murder.

The taking of human life, even in the womb inflicts pain on that life at the same time as it deprives it of the future potential it would experience by living. By destroying what is known (judged, determined, accepted) as life, the value of the rest of human life is demeaned such that similar dispositions could be made by an overarching system of government to terminate similarly unviable life at the other end of life’s existence; viz - the elderly.

And if that can be done, then there are other persons in situations which could be seen as undesirable, inconvenient, unworthy, or living at too low a quality to merit the expenditure of the resources of others.

[bookitty]

I mean that by us, human beings, life must be considered inviolate. If human life as a whole is not considered as being sacred or inviolate, then no one except those who can defend it with sufficient force, wealth, influence, or personal status can retain it, or keep it with certainty, if not now then at some future time when it has become devalued.

I don’t see it as a religious component. If a person chooses to take their own life, then that is their choice. If a person takes the life of another person, then, as a price, that person forfeits the sanctity of their own life. I see that as a legitimate deterrent against wanton acts of murder.

The taking of human life, even in the womb inflicts pain on that life at the same time as it deprives it of the future potential it would experience by living. By destroying what is known (judged, determined, accepted) as life, the value of the rest of human life is demeaned such that similar dispositions could be made by an overarching system of government to terminate similarly unviable life at the other end of life’s existence; viz - the elderly.

And if that can be done, then there are other persons in situations which could be seen as undesirable, inconvenient, unworthy, or living at too low a quality to merit the expenditure of the resources of others.

The majority of abortions take place before 14 weeks before the fetus develops the ability to feel pain. However, I can understand where that would be less important than fetal potential.

It comes down to this - Does a woman have the right to her own body, or can it be usurped. If her physical autonomy is not absolute, where does that end? Can any child demand a bone marrow transplant, kidney or eye from a living parent? Even if that transplant carries some risk of long-term health consequences or even death?

I would also like to see proof that human life has some absolute value. We toss away soldiers in order to gain resources. We ignore the plight of the poor, those without health insurance, people starving in in war-torn or famine ridden nations, etc, etc, etc with little repercussion. We still have the death penalty. If abortion were outlawed, more women would die. Human life is by no means considered sacred.

[Niggle]

Of course not. PP does more contraceptive implants/procedures than it does pregnancy tests.


Snip

Does this not suggest to you that PP's main goal is to PREVENT unwanted pregnancies? The more contraception they can get out there, the fewer abortions will be needed.

[Niggle]

Why do people keep trying to talk about pregnant 9 year olds, rape victims and people whose vasectomy's failed, as if these are the "norm" in abortion.

Once again. Half of all abortions are by women who were not using birth control. And Half of all abortions were also women who had already had an abortion.


So that shows that a large number of women are using abortion as birth control instead of not getting pregnant in the first place.

On top of this we get people saying sex is only for having babies. Or having sex is bad.

These arguments are stupid and avoid the reality of the situation.


The reality is that half of all abortions are by women not using birth control AT ALL. And half of all abortions are repeat abortions.

This shows women being irresponsible. Not victims.

It also shows men not using birth control. Takes two to tango.

[truethat]

It also shows men not using birth control. Takes two to tango.



Takes one to have an abortion. So in that case maybe SHE out to grow the eff up and stop expecting other people to be responsible for her behavior and choices in life.


But of course. Yet again. It's not HER fault SHE chose to have sex without using a condom. Let's blame the guy. Rule number 1 The woman must always be a victim.

[truethat]

Did you copy and paste that directly from Conservapedia? Did you bother to check the sources for bias?

Hmm, Citizens Review Online, right-wing policy group that denies AGW and whose "article" was derived from Live Action, the anti-abortion group whose lies about PP were covered previously, and Concerned Women of America, another anti-abortion group1
Your second source is Christ's Faithful People, "A Confraternity of Roman Catholics promoting doctrinal orthodoxy".
:rolleyes::rolleyes::rolleyes:


SUP]1[/sup] They also oppose all contraception, all gay sex (including consentual acts in private holmes), deny homosexuals have been discriminated against in the pat ans oppose anti-discrimination measures, support prosecution of companies providing hotel porn, oppose comprehensive sex education, support prayer in public schools and oppose HPV vaccination. The usual god botherer agenda.





No I didn't. I googled it. I can't believe you never heard about it so I just googled it. Please stop trying to waft everything away as "biased."

The only one biased here is you. Biased and uneducated. Even a high school student knows Margaret Sanger's history. It's on the freaking Wiki page for crying out loud.

Go do some research before you start speaking. It is foolish otherwise.

[Niggle]

Takes one to have an abortion. So in that case maybe SHE out to grow the eff up and stop expecting other people to be responsible for her behavior and choices in life.


But of course. Yet again. It's not HER fault SHE chose to have sex without using a condom. Let's blame the guy. Rule number 1 The woman must always be a victim.

The condom goes on the man (yeah, I know there's such a thing as a female condom, but I've never seen one available).

Yeah, I'll agree that if the man won't use the condom, there shouldn't be sex. Maybe you should start a campaign to promote condom use among MEN, since that's where it'll have the most effect.

Note that this DOES NOT mean the woman is a victim (your favorite refrain). It means the man is also being irresponsible. Like I said, it takes two to tango. Why isn't the man using the condom if he doesn't want to be a father?

[truethat]

Let me tell you. If a man won't wear a condom for me I won't have sex. Period the end.

So what the heck is wrong with other women? There should be no discussion. The guy doesn't have? You should have your own. Not only is pregnancy a risk, so is disease. If you know for a fact that you would have an abortion is you got pregnant. Don't have sex without a condom. PERIOD THE END.

Please explain to me why there needs to be more to this discussion?

Because you are all treating women like morons. Like helpless victims. It's ridiculous how "feminists" think treating women like helpless idiots is somehow better.

[bookitty]

No I didn't. I googled it. I can't believe you never heard about it so I just googled it. Please stop trying to waft everything away as "biased."

The only one biased here is you. Biased and uneducated. Even a high school student knows Margaret Sanger's history. It's on the freaking Wiki page for crying out loud.

Go do some research before you start speaking. It is foolish otherwise.

And (as I already pointed out but you ignored) A "PP-type" organization is not Planned Parenthood and social attitudes have dramatically changed since the 1930's. In addition - birth control is not eugenics, modern abortion is not eugenics, clinics that receive Title X funding prevent pregnancy, thus reducing abortion. There are currently no other organizations with the same geographical reach as Planned Parenthood. If Planned Parenthood is loses funding, millions of uninsured and under-insured Americans will not have access to birth control. There will be more abortions.

Saying that PP is evil because a birth control proponent was pro-eugenics 75 years ago is stupid. Using that stupidity to attack PP in hopes of reducing the abortion rate is beyond moronic.

[bookitty]

Let me tell you. If a man won't wear a condom for me I won't have sex. Period the end.

So what the heck is wrong with other women? There should be no discussion. The guy doesn't have? You should have your own. Not only is pregnancy a risk, so is disease. If you know for a fact that you would have an abortion is you got pregnant. Don't have sex without a condom. PERIOD THE END.

Please explain to me why there needs to be more to this discussion?

Because you are all treating women like morons. Like helpless victims. It's ridiculous how "feminists" think treating women like helpless idiots is somehow better.

Oh dear, given the rate of failure with condoms, I certainly hope your future abortion goes well.

[truethat]

Hey bookitty's back to ignore the facts.

I'll write them again for you

Half of all women who have an abortion each year admit they were not using ANY birth control when they got pregnant.

That's the half willing to admit it. I bet the number is higher. But since there are so many people willing to lap up the "the condom broke" line, women can lie about it.

Next

Half of all abortions each year are REPEAT abortions.


Nice thing those statistics. Those lovely unbiased facts. And what we see is a very large number of irresponsible women getting pregnant and not caring.

And since vaginal intercourse is so very important to a woman's well being, that the idea of going without it if she is at a higher risk for getting pregnant is ABSURD how dare we ask women to use oral sex, anal sex, mutual masturbation or sex toys when they absolutely must have a clean uncovered penis, otherwise their very selves will crumble into nothingness.

I mean please.


Here's the facts on unwanted pregnancy. Take a look.


http://www.guttmacher.org/pubs/FB-Unintended-Pregnancy-US.html


Those pesky little facts and statistics.

http://www.guttmacher.org/graphics/2012/01/25/IB-UP-contraception-works.gif

[Redtail]

Let me tell you. If a man won't wear a condom for me I won't have sex. Period the end.

So what the heck is wrong with other women? There should be no discussion. The guy doesn't have? You should have your own. Not only is pregnancy a risk, so is disease. If you know for a fact that you would have an abortion is you got pregnant. Don't have sex without a condom. PERIOD THE END.

Please explain to me why there needs to be more to this discussion?

Because you are all treating women like morons. Like helpless victims. It's ridiculous how "feminists" think treating women like helpless idiots is somehow better.

Because you and others are acting like a clump of cells that kinda looks human matters more than the woman carrying it.

[bookitty]

Hey bookitty's back to ignore the facts.

I'll write them again for you

Half of all women who have an abortion each year admit they were not using ANY birth control when they got pregnant.

That's the half willing to admit it. I bet the number is higher. But since there are so many people willing to lap up the "the condom broke" line, women can lie about it.

Next

Half of all abortions each year are REPEAT abortions.


Nice thing those statistics. Those lovely unbiased facts. And what we see is a very large number of irresponsible women getting pregnant and not caring.

And since vaginal intercourse is so very important to a woman's well being, that the idea of going without it if she is at a higher risk for getting pregnant is ABSURD how dare we ask women to use oral sex, anal sex, mutual masturbation or sex toys when they absolutely must have a clean uncovered penis, otherwise their very selves will crumble into nothingness.

I mean please.


Here's the facts on unwanted pregnancy. Take a look.

http://www.guttmacher.org/pubs/FB-Unintended-Pregnancy-US.html

Hmmm...there doesn't seem to be anything in there about a question you ignored a while back. Why were women not using birth control. Was it access, expense, social pressure, unexpected or forced sex, or apathy?

Discovering and addressing the real reasons might be a better way to protect women from unwanted pregnancy than just guessing that they aren't giving enough blowjobs.

And back to the half that were using birth control. I'm willing to bet that a good percentage of them were using condoms. And a few more thought that plan B ordered off the internet as needed would be adequate back-up.

[truethat]

You're willing to bet? So great I give you statistics. And you're willing to be that the Guttmacher research is wrong, and your "hunch" is more correct?

Of the women who are at risk for unwanted pregnancy, only 5% of them got pregnant if they used consistent and correct birth control. So a young woman goes on birth control pills or gets the norplant or whatnot. And in addition she always uses a condom. Statistics show she is very unlikely to get pregnant. Bookitty hunches aside.

And redtail. I am not saying a clump of cells is anything. Do not dive into a conversation on the end pages and try to chime in when you don't know what I said.

Being pro life is not being anti abortion. Not necessarily. Many people like myself are disgusted at the way abortion has turned into an industry. And that women are using it as a form of birth control instead of not getting pregnant in the first place.

Half of all abortions are REPEAT abortions. Lets ignore that as well. Which means they went through an abortion, had access to contraceptive support and still didn't use birth control every time.


Abortion should be a safe legal medical procedure that should be available in situations where a woman's life is in danger, rape, teenage pregnancy etc. It should be used rarely.

It should not be used as a form of birth control. And right now. IT IS.

The only people who can change that, are women being more responsible about their bodies and their health. But how dare we treat a woman like this is a possibility.

No she's an idiot. She needs help to figure it out.

[Redtail]

And redtail. I am not saying a clump of cells is anything. Do not dive into a conversation on the end pages and try to chime in when you don't know what I said.
Lol! So you're disgusted at the way abortion has become an industry why exactly?

[truethat]

I'm disgusted at the perpetuation of women as victims all the time. Rather than responsible women who can make intelligent choices in their lives. I'm also disgusted how the woman as victim crap is rolled out every single time this discussion is raised. Even though there are NO statistics that back up any of the assertions made.

The statistics back up what I am saying. That irresponsibility is what causes the most need for abortion.

[bookitty]

You're willing to bet? So great I give you statistics. And you're willing to be that the Guttmacher research is wrong, and your "hunch" is more correct?


You didn't show any reasons why women were not using birth control. You just assume that they don't care.

And sorry, forgot about that sarcasm thing. I am honestly glad that we had this conversation and that you are now aware (as you were not previously) that Plan B is best used within 24 hours. Given that you are using one of the less effective types of birth control, that information may come in handy. If you didn't have it, you may end up a statistic. Not being able to wave your superiority of those other, lesser women who become pregnant though lack of information might lead to severe mental health issues. That would be sad. :(


Of the women who are at risk for unwanted pregnancy, only 5% of them got pregnant if they used consistent and correct birth control. So a young woman goes on birth control pills or gets the norplant or whatnot. And in addition she always uses a condom. Statistics show she is very unlikely to get pregnant. Bookitty hunches aside.


And what about those women who do not have access or funds.


And redtail. I am not saying a clump of cells is anything. Do not dive into a conversation on the end pages and try to chime in when you don't know what I said.

No only a "person" who can be "murdered."


Being pro life is not being anti abortion. Not necessarily. Many people like myself are disgusted at the way abortion has turned into an industry.

citation needed.

And that women are using it as a form of birth control instead of not getting pregnant in the first place.

citation needed.

Half of all abortions are REPEAT abortions. Lets ignore that as well. Which means they went through an abortion, had access to contraceptive support and still didn't use birth control every time.

Needs: Proof that no birth control was used in between, time between abortions, proof of access to contraception, proof of funds for contraception.


Abortion should be a safe legal medical procedure that should be available in situations where a woman's life is in danger, rape, teenage pregnancy etc. It should be used rarely.

It should not be used as a form of birth control. And right now. IT IS.

The only people who can change that, are women being more responsible about their bodies and their health. But how dare we treat a woman like this is a possibility.

No she's an idiot. She needs help to figure it out.

How dare we let a woman decided what to do with her own body. If she would just stop being an idiot and have sex the way that you tell her to and make the choices that you tell her to, she would be so much more independent.

[truethat]

Actually yeah Bookitty. If she would use responsible birth control all the time. She would have a very low risk of getting pregnant.

The nerve of me. I know. I know.


Also stop asking ME to make your point for you. If you are blathering on all about the statistics you think are true, then I am assuming you have done your research Becky. So out with it.

Prove to me that "lack of access to birth control" is what makes women not use birth control. I'll be over here waiting.

[bookitty]

Actually yeah Bookitty. If she would use responsible birth control all the time. She would have a very low risk of getting pregnant.

The nerve of me. I know. I know.

Aaaand you were attacking Planned Parenthood. How does that even make sense?

[truethat]

Aaaaaaaaaaaand you still are side stepping your argument? I didn't "attack" Planned Parenthood, that was in reaction to the example posted up by the person with the traumatizing adoption story. I pointed out how you all jumped on the girl in the story because she was presented as a victim. Which is how you seem to like it. And it was ONE WOMAN's experience. Didn't stop everyone from treating the agency like it was horrible. My point was, if you want to roll out the propaganda, you can roll it right up to Planned Parenthood as well. You can use the Eugenics movement and twist it all up the same way.

So why was this example of the forced pressured adoption even mentioned.

This is the kind of repeated pattern of people in this thread. Argue that woman are victims. Present an example of a RARE CASE of a woman as a victim. Pretend that is a norm. Mention your personal anecdotes and hunches.

Then ignore all the evidence I posted. Challenge my statistics as biased, but offer none of your own. Make exaggerated claims of what I'm saying. Please.

Studies show, that the reason so many women have abortions is that they are not using consistent birth control in a competent way. Those are the facts.

And my statement earlier was that there is no reason a woman should need to even be considering an abortion IN GENERAL if she is using proper birth control. And if she knows she doesn't want to get pregnant she needs to use a condom every time or not have vaginal intercourse.

I find it really sad that you think this is disempowering women, or pushing life choices, or making them into sluts. To me it's common sense.

[Redtail]

I'm disgusted at the perpetuation of women as victims all the time. Rather than responsible women who can make intelligent choices in their lives. I'm also disgusted how the woman as victim crap is rolled out every single time this discussion is raised. Even though there are NO statistics that back up any of the assertions made.

The statistics back up what I am saying. That irresponsibility is what causes the most need for abortion.

Ha! You've complained about people saying that the woman's life is more important than the "child's" & compared abortion to murder. Now you're throwing this out as if you're not saying a clump of cells is anything.

[bookitty]

Aaaaaaaaaaaand you still are side stepping your argument? I didn't "attack" Planned Parenthood, that was in reaction to the example posted up by the person with the traumatizing adoption story. I pointed out how you all jumped on the girl in the story because she was presented as a victim. Which is how you seem to like it. And it was ONE WOMAN's experience. Didn't stop everyone from treating the agency like it was horrible. My point was, if you want to roll out the propaganda, you can roll it right up to Planned Parenthood as well. You can use the Eugenics movement and twist it all up the same way.

So why was this example of the forced pressured adoption even mentioned.

This is the kind of repeated pattern of people in this thread. Argue that woman are victims. Present an example of a RARE CASE of a woman as a victim. Pretend that is a norm. Mention your personal anecdotes and hunches.

Then ignore all the evidence I posted. Challenge my statistics as biased, but offer none of your own. Make exaggerated claims of what I'm saying. Please.

Studies show, that the reason so many women have abortions is that they are not using consistent birth control in a competent way. Those are the facts.

And my statement earlier was that there is no reason a woman should need to even be considering an abortion IN GENERAL if she is using proper birth control. And if she knows she doesn't want to get pregnant she needs to use a condom every time or not have vaginal intercourse.

I find it really sad that you think this is disempowering women, or pushing life choices, or making them into sluts. To me it's common sense.

Your argument assumes that all women have equal access and funding for birth control, actually two forms of birth control. I would like to see proof of that. All the other "**** feminists say" is just your usual hand-waving.

And who is Becky?

[truethat]

Becky is an interenet phrase for someone who has not done their research. It's a joke. Really you want to make the claim that women don't have access to two forms of birth control? Back it up! You've done nothing here but give your opinion.


You can even use the link I gave you. Did you even bother to read it? It's not biased. It's facts.

[myowninvention]

It's true- guttmacher is an excellent resource for statistics regarding reproduction in the US . I do find it a bit disingenuous that you picked to quote the statistic regarding all unintended pregnancies, when you know that that is not the same as either unwanted, or terminated pregnancies. Oddly, though failed birth control accounts for 5% of unintended pregnancie, it accounts for over 50% of abortions. Yes, I too would like to see the number of abortions due to failure to use birth control drop, but unlike you, I am uninterested in judging these women. Rather, I am interested in finding out why they aren't using birth control, and what measures can be taken to decrease their number.


I tried to engage you in this conversation, but you seem only to be concerned with ranting about how much you presume they are being irresponsible.

[truethat]

No they separate the unintended pregnancies much further up. FAILED birth control doesn't account for 50% of all abortions. That's false. That's twisting the truth. NOT USING BIRTH CONTROL accounts for Half of all the abortions.

I'm not interested in judging these women. I'm interested in stopping other women from acting like they are helpless babies who can't be expected to know how to handle their own birth control. Because this MEME is what is perpetuated to their daughters and to young women.

If the MEME was that it was a woman's right and responsibility to be proactive and very empowered about using birth control, then the numbers would drop.

The birth control is there. And it works. The real problem is that they aren't using it.

[myowninvention]

No they separate the unintended pregnancies much further up.
Yes, I've read all of the stats. I was merely pointing out that unintended pregnancies are a very different thing from unwanted pregnancies- the former simply mean they were not planned, the latter are the type that result in abortion- I should know- I gave birth a bit over a month ago to a very unintended, but very wanted daughter. (And no, I was not using birth control at the time) Think about how many couples have unplanned children, and you may see the reason I question the relevance of this statistic.

FAILED birth control doesn't account for 50% of all abortions. That's false. That's twisting the truth. NOT USING BIRTH CONTROL accounts for Half of all the abortions.

If 50% of women who had an abortion were not using birth control, it follows that 50% were using it. As the point of birth control is to prevent pregnancy, I feel confident in saying that, for the 50% who were using birth control, the birth control failed. I recognize that you believe this statistic shows an unacceptably high number of women not using birth control, and I agree, but stating the fact that half of all abortions performed were on women who had not used birth control does not negate the fact that the other half did.

I'm not interested in judging these women. I'm interested in stopping other women from acting like they are helpless babies who can't be expected to know how to handle their own birth control. Because this MEME is what is perpetuated to their daughters and to young women.
I guess you're definition of judging is different from mine. I think that stating your aim as "stopping women from acting like they are helpless babies who can't be expected to know how to handle their own birth control" is a pretty darn judgmental view of women, especially when stated without any mention of constructive ways to prevent this phenomenon. Out of curiosity, does your interest go beyond just stating this fact? What, specifically would you like to see done? You can refer, perhaps, to my post several pages back, where I mentioned a few of the things I would promote towards the aim of increasing the use of birth control. (Which post, I notice, you ignored almost in it's entirety)

If the MEME was that it was a woman's right and responsibility to be proactive and very empowered about using birth control, then the numbers would drop.

The birth control is there. And it works. The real problem is that they aren't using it.

So why do you think that this is the case, and what can we do, as a society, to make a change?

[myowninvention]

Some more statistics that I think might give us some insight-
http://www.guttmacher.org

• The overall U.S. unintended pregnancy rate remained stagnant between 1994 and 2006, but unintended pregnancy increased 50% among poor women, while decreasing 29% among higher-income women.[1]

• Overall, the abortion rate decreased 8% between 2000 and 2008, but abortion increased 18% among poor women, while decreasing 28% among higher-income women.

• Eight percent of women who have abortions have never used a method of birth control; nonuse is greatest among those who are young, poor, black, Hispanic or less educated.[8]

• About 61% of abortions are obtained by women who have one or more children. [6]

• The reasons women give for having an abortion underscore their understanding of the responsibilities of parenthood and family life. Three-fourths of women cite concern for or responsibility to other individuals; three-fourths say they cannot afford a child; three-fourths say that having a baby would interfere with work, school or the ability to care for dependents; and half say they do not want to be a single parent or are having problems with their husband or partner.[7]


Personally, I find these statistics to be telling, and to show a clear link between birth control use, abortion, and poverty. This is one fact that we, as a society, should be looking into.

[Aepervius]

I'm for abortion through the 1200th month. After that though, no dice.

He. That means my grandma is "safe" from abortion, as she was in her 1223rd month (sadly died weeks before reaching 103 years).

[Aepervius]

I'm for recognizing a fetus as having the same rights and protections as a newborn baby. That doesn't mean abortion is always wrong, but it means you must be able to justify it on the same basis that you would justify killing a newborn (which means rape, for instance, is probably not going to cut it).


It is actually morally inconsistent.

Let me explain.

If you want to protect the life of the unborn, you do it despite the wish of the mother to keep/not keep it. Therefore , simply deciding that because the fetus was the result of a rape it loses the right to be born, is agreeing that the mother should have a choice. If you agree she should have a choice, then she should have it also when the baby is not welcome for other reason than rape.

See you cannot on one hand argue for the right of the unborn, and on a whim withdraw that right because the mother is effected psychologically.

Either the fetus has a right to be born, no matter HOW it was generated, OR the mother has a right to abort.

[Aepervius]

We discussed this years ago and the number of women who reported getting pregnant while raped was a whopping ZERO.


Oh, pelase, do you think rape is somehow contraceptive or what ? pregnancy due to rape happens, they happens more rarely because of contraception, and much more rarely nowadays due to AIDS and forensic, rapist use condoms more often, but they still do happen.

[Aepervius]

Preventing implantation is fine. Then the cell will not develop. What don't you understand? The point is to prevent abortion. Pregnancies sometimes happen. But you don't need to have an abortion any more. I doubt women have this on their bathroom shelf in the event of an emergency.

YOu don't realize that preventing implantation works only if you know that you had no contraceptive, right ? If you had a contraceptive like ills, or even that things called "sterilet" (dispositif intra uterin don't know the term in english) they have between 0.2% and 0.4% of failure. And in case of failure you only know too late to prevent implantation.

I won't even comment on the fact that morning after or plan B can simply fail due to delay, otr a variety of reason, what you don't even take into account.

Duh. You don't seem to know as much about women body and contraception as you think you do.

[Aepervius]

Really.

Admittedly, I'm not sure what this has to do with the abortion debate, as the Bible certainly does not address the subject directly.

If passage of the old testament are to be accepted, abortion is fine post-partum.

[Aepervius]

This is not true. Late term abortion is most frequently performed because of severe medical necessity.


Indeed, the ONLY late term abortion allowed I know of in my own country are due to a variety of medical reason the main 2 being : 1) the fetus endanger the mother and cannot be born premature thru cesar cut (thus only option is abortion) and 2) the fetus is already dead and waiting for the mother to do a birth would have her the psychological effect of knowing she is carying a dead fetus all that time.

It is a standard SOP for "anti choice" people to bring up late term abortion. Standard SOP to compare something the majority of the population recognize as being nearly an infant (8th month fetus discussion) when in reality most abortion are waaaay before the 12th or 14th weeks, and late term abortion are rarity that doctor want to avoid.

That constant referaming of the debate quite clearly shows their true color.

[Aepervius]

That actually sounds like an excellent tactic -- show her the fetus is a real person to identify with, rather than a generic blob of cells.
Does it get the message across?

Except that before 10th week or even 12th you would barely recognize it on a sonogram as human. Photographied outside the body on 12th week, it starts (and only starts) to look human with a big head tiny arm and tiny leg , but only because a photograph has a good resolution. On a sonogram it is clumpy. It looks like a tadpole with a big head. Don't believe me ? Go look at photo/picture. Not on right wing web site, but on real medical web site.

[Aepervius]

The church exomunicated a child's mother and doctor for aborting her twins when she was 8. Of course her stepdad who raped her was ok in their book as everyone knows how seductive 8 year olds can be.

So yes lots of people think that, at least when it is your niece not their daughter.

On the other hand, "sinning" priest which diddle little children are not excommunicated.

Go figure.

[catsmate1]

And (as I already pointed out but you ignored) A "PP-type" organization is not Planned Parenthood and social attitudes have dramatically changed since the 1930's. In addition - birth control is not eugenics, modern abortion is not eugenics, clinics that receive Title X funding prevent pregnancy, thus reducing abortion. There are currently no other organizations with the same geographical reach as Planned Parenthood. If Planned Parenthood is loses funding, millions of uninsured and under-insured Americans will not have access to birth control. There will be more abortions.

Saying that PP is evil because a birth control proponent was pro-eugenics 75 years ago is stupid. Using that stupidity to attack PP in hopes of reducing the abortion rate is beyond moronic.
Yup. Truethat can't find any recent evidence to support his/her assertions hence the reliance on Sanger.

[catsmate1]

Abortion should be a safe legal medical procedure that should be available in situations where a woman's life is in danger, rape, teenage pregnancy etc. It should be used rarely.
I've asked this before in this thread and got no response: what level of danger to the women's life, in your opinion, justified abortion?

[TheGoldcountry]

Yup. Truethat can't find any recent evidence to support his/her assertions hence the reliance on Sanger.

truethat is female, if it matters.

[catsmate1]

It is actually morally inconsistent.

Let me explain.

If you want to protect the life of the unborn, you do it despite the wish of the mother to keep/not keep it. Therefore , simply deciding that because the fetus was the result of a rape it loses the right to be born, is agreeing that the mother should have a choice. If you agree she should have a choice, then she should have it also when the baby is not welcome for other reason than rape.

See you cannot on one hand argue for the right of the unborn, and on a whim withdraw that right because the mother is effected psychologically.

Either the fetus has a right to be born, no matter HOW it was generated, OR the mother has a right to abort.
Yes but a totally morally consistent stance is uncommon among those oppose abortion, they'd then have to advocate forcing victims of rape to carry the fetus to term which would be an unpopular stance and perhaps difficult for them to accept themselves.

[catsmate1]

truethat is female, if it matters.
Thanks, I try not to make assumptions.:)

[bookitty]

Some more statistics that I think might give us some insight-
http://www.guttmacher.org


Personally, I find these statistics to be telling, and to show a clear link between birth control use, abortion, and poverty. This is one fact that we, as a society, should be looking into.

That was where I was going. (Although expecting a bit of drift from the party line was a unreasonably optimistic.)

People who haven't experienced long term poverty find it difficult to understand why someone can't "just buy a box of condoms." Or why a woman who has no, or inadequate health insurance can not afford to be on hormonal contraceptives. Or why a woman who experiences birth control failure can't "just go out and buy a $50 dose of Plan B." It's easy to decide that you would skip groceries for a week or let the lights be shut off when it's not an ongoing concern.

if you take an increase in poverty, unemployment and family homelessness, add that to lower education rates, budget cuts to Title X family planning clinics, especially in rural areas, and inadequate or scientifically unsound sex-ed, you get more unwanted pregnancies.

It's not just women being stupid.

[catsmate1]

Ron Paul on rape and abortion (http://piersmorgan.blogs.cnn.com/2012/02/03/ron-paul-on-rape-and-abortion-its-a-tough-one-and-i-wont-satisfy-everybody-there/?hpt=pm_mid).

On the eve of Saturday's Nevada caucus, Ron Paul sits down with Piers Morgan for a revealing interview, during which the Republican from Texas shares his views on rape and abortion: "If it's an honest rape, that individual should go immediately to the emergency room, I would give them a shot of estrogen."

What's "honest rape"?

[bookitty]

Ron Paul on rape and abortion (http://piersmorgan.blogs.cnn.com/2012/02/03/ron-paul-on-rape-and-abortion-its-a-tough-one-and-i-wont-satisfy-everybody-there/?hpt=pm_mid).



What's "honest rape"?

That's when it starts with "Hello, my name is Tom. I'll be your rapist for the evening." and ends with noticeable bruising and wounds. That way you don't have to worry about the woman's version of events.

[Moss]

People who haven't experienced long term poverty find it difficult to understand why someone can't "just buy a box of condoms." Or why a woman who has no, or inadequate health insurance can not afford to be on hormonal contraceptives. Or why a woman who experiences birth control failure can't "just go out and buy a $50 dose of Plan B." It's easy to decide that you would skip groceries for a week or let the lights be shut off when it's not an ongoing concern.

if you take an increase in poverty, unemployment and family homelessness, add that to lower education rates, budget cuts to Title X family planning clinics, especially in rural areas, and inadequate or scientifically unsound sex-ed, you get more unwanted pregnancies.

It's not just women being stupid.


Only basing this on my rather limited experience but I would assume that those young poor women come from a background that has


a social stigma attached to sex in general
a social stigma attached to the use of contraceptives
a social stigma attached to pregnancies outside of marriage

which leads to the nasty combination of young people that want sex but have to do it sneaky which means that anything that shows they are active has to be either hidden or nonexistent and caused by the same taboo shame attached to being a single mother which either makes the women seek an abortion or their family seeking the abortion because having a single mother in your family is A Bad Thing.
I'm not sure how unrealistic that assumption is.

[myowninvention]

Only basing this on my rather limited experience but I would assume that those young poor women come from a background that has


a social stigma attached to sex in general
a social stigma attached to the use of contraceptives
a social stigma attached to pregnancies outside of marriage

which leads to the nasty combination of young people that want sex but have to do it sneaky which means that anything that shows they are active has to be either hidden or nonexistent and caused by the same taboo shame attached to being a single mother which either makes the women seek an abortion or their family seeking the abortion because having a single mother in your family is A Bad Thing.
I'm not sure how unrealistic that assumption is.

This may be, but it is much harder to quantify then the simple economics of the matter, which are shockingly dire for some.

http://www.guttmacher.org/pubs/tgr/06/5/gr060507.html
This article provides an excellent summary of the difficulties women with a low income face in accessing birth control.

[MattusMaximus]

Or would you say to your daughter "Always use a condom when you have sex. Unprotected sex can lead to disease and unwanted pregnancy."


And what do you say to your daughter who did everything right, but the condom broke?

You know, just like some of those anti-choice women who justify getting their own abortions? (http://mypage.direct.ca/w/writer/anti-tales.html) It's ironic that so many people are anti-choice until it comes down to their choice; I guess these hypocrites really are pro-choice, but rather than just choose for themselves they wish to choose for everyone.

[MattusMaximus]

I don’t see it as a religious component. If a person chooses to take their own life, then that is their choice. If a person takes the life of another person, then, as a price, that person forfeits the sanctity of their own life. I see that as a legitimate deterrent against wanton acts of murder.

So why do you consider a day-old embryo a "person"?

The taking of human life, even in the womb inflicts pain on that life at the same time as it deprives it of the future potential it would experience by living. By destroying what is known (judged, determined, accepted) as life, the value of the rest of human life is demeaned such that similar dispositions could be made by an overarching system of government to terminate similarly unviable life at the other end of life’s existence; viz - the elderly.

Would you care to cite evidence that a day-old embryo can "feel pain" without the slightest semblance of a central nervous system?

And if you want to start talking about "potentials", then let me ask you this: would you award a medical license to a med student simply because they are a potential doctor?

[MattusMaximus]

But of course. Yet again. It's not HER fault SHE chose to have sex without using a condom. Let's blame the guy. Rule number 1 The woman must always be a victim.

And what if she (and her partner) WAS responsible, used a condom, and it broke?

You seem to be arguing against what you view as irresponsible behavior more than anything, even to the point of excluding the possibility that even in responsible situations unwanted pregnancies can still occur. Why is that?

[MattusMaximus]

Because you and others are acting like a clump of cells that kinda looks human looks nothing like a human matters more than the woman carrying it.

Ftfy

[Safe-Keeper]

Is there not some rule here against thread spamming? No, but I find it annoying myself. For those who don't know how to multiquote, do it by hitting this button http://forums.randi.org/helloworld2/buttons/multiquote_off.gif for every post you want to reply to, then just hit http://forums.randi.org/helloworld2/buttons/reply.gif as you normally would.

Edit: there's also the Edit button ;)

[Faustus]

So why do you consider a day-old embryo a "person"?



Would you care to cite evidence that a day-old embryo can "feel pain" without the slightest semblance of a central nervous system?

And if you want to start talking about "potentials", then let me ask you this: would you award a medical license to a med student simply because they are a potential doctor?

I didn't say either of those things, but you are perfectly welcome to draw that conclusion. I think I made perfectly clear my premise in answer to moss.

[Aepervius]

No, but I find it annoying myself. For those who don't know how to multiquote, do it by hitting this button http://forums.randi.org/helloworld2/buttons/multiquote_off.gif for every post you want to reply to, then just hit http://forums.randi.org/helloworld2/buttons/reply.gif as you normally would.

Edit: there's also the Edit button ;)

I have wondered what this buton was all the years.

Now I feel very very very dumb. And smarter thanks to you. but sitll dumb. And conflicted.

[Complexity]

When "life" begins is not a point of contention.


Of course it is.

Ask the silly catholics about every sperm being sacred.

[Complexity]

Just to be clear, do you think a human baby is more important than an animal "baby"?


First of all, a human baby is an animal baby.

Secondly, why the scare quotes?

To answer your question, I don't think that human offspring are necessarily more 'important' than the offspring of other animals.

You may want to sharpen up your question.

[Complexity]

But the answer is simple, and obvious. Every species protects its own ( on a macro level) and makes use of or avoids other species. It is just the way things work, nature is a competition.


Nonsense.

Not only isn't this what actually happens, it doesn't reflect how I feel about it.

I have a real dislike for many people and wouldn't do a thing to save their lives.

I rarely have such a dislike for other animals.

[Complexity]

What is the end point of the pro-life movement?

The end point is control,control of women. Barefoot and pregnant. Barefoot because having a large family can lead to poverty...poverty often leads to religion,the comfort of the desperate.

Or barefoot,because having a large family...means constant work....and you can`t find your shoes in the pile of hundreds!!

I have a Christian friend who had at times at least 3 children under 5 . Her husband whose authority she is under (after leaving her fathers) is constantly going from scheme to idea to plot.

Each time losing more money,sinking them a bit lower. but its hard to criticise if you have no power and frankly are always dead tired.

Poverty is a great recruiter for religions. Having many children,is just filling up those pews.
if you keep women at home,under resourced and tired...they are not going to fight back.
I say this as a stay at home mum,who had four children...but through choice not lack of power or religion.


^ This.

[truethat]

I consider it murder. So I would be very careful. IF THE CONDOM BROKE for the last freaking time, it is a legitimate reason to have an abortion.

But once again everyone is pretending that this is why most people have abortions.

If you look at the statistics you will see that HALF OF ALL ABORTIONS are had by women using NO BIRTH CONTROL at all when they got pregnant.

HELLLLLLOOOOOOOOO?


I consider it murder. But I thought of an interesting example. To me murder can be justifiable in the worst of circumstances. It is terrible but it is what needed to be done.

An example

A Jewish woman hiding in the ghetto during the Holocaust, has a baby. And the baby starts crying. The people hiding with the woman are all at risk for their lives because of the crying baby. So the mother smothers the baby while it is sleeping.

It is murder. But I would have nothing but compassion for the woman. My heart would break for the woman. I would do everything in my power to offer the woman support for her terrible choice. I would never judge her and feel that it was very unfair for her to put be put in that position. What was done is what needed to be done.


This is an emergency. Not women using abortion as a form of birth control.

Everyone CONSISTANTLY wants to talk about the worst case scenarios instead of the reality.

It's frickin' annoying.

Half of all abortions are repeat abortions.

Half of all abortions are had by women using NO BIRTH CONTROL when they got pregnant.

[truethat]

truethat is female, if it matters.

Yes and truethat also has three kids, including one kid that was a mishap of a broken condom. So I find it funny how everyone is pretending I just got lucky it never happened to me. I made sure my sexual partners knew I was anti abortion and would have the child if I got pregnant. I also never expected anyone to take care of my child but me. But I did get lucky and married responsible men TWICE. So I can't complain there.

However. I don't see how I was more responsible at 22 than women in their 30s. It's ridiculous.

The perpetuation of the idea that women are helpless victims when it comes to not getting pregnant is what I see over and over and over again. Also Catsmate. The Sanger assertion is well known history, not propaganda. The things you are posting are propaganda. I've used reputable unbiased sources that you dismiss cause you don't wanna admit that it is factual.

Guttmacher is right there for everyone to read. But you've ignored it.

Seems like you and bookitty just want to talk about rape victims getting pregnant. Like that's the reality of abortion.



And to add, I certainly know the experience of long term poverty. With my three kids my husband and I at one point lived on $700 every two weeks with a rent of $1200 a month. We were not on food stamps. Looking back I have no idea how we did it. The rent was often late. Please spare me that I don't understand long term poverty. I never got pregnant. I wasn't on birth control pills we only used condoms. If we didn't have condoms we didn't have vaginal intercourse. Period the end. NEVER.


We're talking about sex here. Not health coverage or medical necessity. No person on this planet ever died from not having sex. There are responsible ways to have sex and irresponsible ways to have sex.

NOT USING BIRTH CONTROL is an irresponsible way to have sex. The fact that this is being debated is unreal. In addition there are other things people can do to sexually gratify themselves without having vaginal intercourse. Seriously how dumb do you all think women are?

[myowninvention]

I think we understand your perspective. What I really want to know is what do you think we can do to change these statistics- how can we get more people to change their practices regarding safe sex. Regardless of whether you consider it an excuse or an explanation, the fact is that poverty and lack of birth control are correlated. So how do we, as a society approach the problem?

[MattusMaximus]

I consider it murder. So I would be very careful. IF THE CONDOM BROKE for the last freaking time, it is a legitimate reason to have an abortion.

In other words, according to you, most women who get abortions are terribly irresponsible about it and so it is "Murder" with a capital M, yet in your hypothetical scenario where the condom breaks it is simply "murder" with a small m which is entirely justified because you are, by your own definition, being responsible.

Seems like you've carved out a nice little exception for yourself there, though you probably won't admit it.

My oh my, what a convoluted moral compass you wield :rolleyes:

ETA: I find it ironic that you spend so much energy railing against women who "play the victim" or against those who, in your view, portray women as victims, yet you seem in recent posts to be playing that victim card yourself (complaining so loudly about the criticism directed against you). Just an observation.

[sgtbaker]

I consider it murder. So I would be very careful. IF THE CONDOM BROKE for the last freaking time, it is a legitimate reason to have an abortion.


I am curious at how anyone is going to know the difference. If you make something like that an expectation, then I can guarantee you that there will be a hell of a lot more "reported" broken condoms.

But once again everyone is pretending that this is why most people have abortions.

If you look at the statistics you will see that HALF OF ALL ABORTIONS are had by women using NO BIRTH CONTROL at all when they got pregnant.

HELLLLLLOOOOOOOOO?


Which means half of the women reported using birth control. Do we start doing blood tests and vaginal swabs to ensure that no one is ever going to get away with terminating an accidental pregnancy by means of irresponsibility? We may or may not have the same opinions on abortion, but what I can say is just because I opted to carry an accidental pregnancy to term, at a less than optimal time, because I felt it was the right thing to do, does not mean that I am now the shining example of what all women should do in the same situation.

What you don't seem to understand is sometimes statistics overlap. Not all of the 50% who have abortions because of lack of protection are the same ones who've had multiple abortions. Some of the women who have abortions because of unprotected sex, were actually trying to get pregnant but there were health issues with the fetus or mother. Statistics are nameless and storyless methods of tracking numbers with no explanation about the actual procedures or reasons.

...snip Everyone CONSISTANTLY wants to talk about the worst case scenarios instead of the reality.

It's frickin' annoying.

Half of all abortions are repeat abortions.

Half of all abortions are had by women using NO BIRTH CONTROL when they got pregnant

Again, how many of those "not using birthcontrol" abortions were actually wanted babies that didn't make it? Look, you are entitled to your opinions, I have mine and I no desire to try and convince you when it goes from a medical procedure to murder. I don't know what you want to be done with your opinions, though. Calling a woman who has an abortion due to an unintended pregnancy helpless is quite useless. You are assuming that she is blaming everyone but herself. She may know exactly how she got pregnant but that doesn't change the fact that she wants to correct that. Have you ever made an error in judgement before?

[truethat]

I never said the same half not using protection were the same half that had the repeat abortions.

And I'm not interested in blaming the woman herself. At that point what is done is done.

However the mentality of the "abortion movement" seems to promote the idea that women NEED to have sex and that it's not their fault if they don't use birth control.

You've repeatedly seen excuse after excuse after excuse trotted out as if a grown woman can't practice safe sex.

Some of the posters in this thread treat women like raging morons and then pretend they are the ones on the side of women.

Um no. I respect that a woman has enough intelligence to not have sex carelessly if she doesn't want to have an abortion or a baby.




I think we understand your perspective. What I really want to know is what do you think we can do to change these statistics- how can we get more people to change their practices regarding safe sex. Regardless of whether you consider it an excuse or an explanation, the fact is that poverty and lack of birth control are correlated. So how do we, as a society approach the problem?



First a formost encourage young women to learn more about their ovulation cycles. While not totally reliant you can know when you are more likely to get pregnant than not.

I find it atrocious at how whenever this topic comes up, the idea of teaching some skills of abstinence is treated as if we're throwing women back into the dark ages.

How did I not get pregnant in two years of not really being able to afford condoms all the time? I used other forms of sexual activity. I also knew my cycle very well. Young girls should be taught about using their ovulation cycle to help avoid getting pregnant.

But to fix this we need young women and women to take 100 percent responsibility for not getting pregnant. It's her body after all. What happens now is that when a girl gets pregnant we say "It takes two to tango" and hold the guy responsible.

Have you guys considered that a man has absolutely no say whatsoever if he doesn't want to be a father at a young age? If he and the girl both are willing to use abortion. The condom breaks. No one says to the guy "Poor guy, you don't have to have the baby." If that girl wants the baby he is forced to be a father. Period the end.

We tell boys, "then keep it in your pants." No one seems to have a problem advocating abstinence or "always use a condom" to a boy. So why should it be any different for a girl? Especially since she is the one who is going to get pregnant?

Part of it is that a lot of these groups are not really interested in reducing the number of abortions because it is an industry and a business just like any other business. And so it's marketed as a woman's rights issue.

However, as I said, if I was a mother to a girl, I'd be teaching my daughter how not to get pregnant. Not how to assert her right to an abortion.

http://www.health.arizona.edu/health_topics/sexual_health/sextalk/2005/sextalk.10.24.05.pdf

[MattusMaximus]

Truethat, stop whining about everyone criticizing you and your arguments.

You're just playing the victim card.

It's annoying.

[truethat]

In other words, according to you, most women who get abortions are terribly irresponsible about it and so it is "Murder" with a capital M, yet in your hypothetical scenario where the condom breaks it is simply "murder" with a small m which is entirely justified because you are, by your own definition, being responsible.

Seems like you've carved out a nice little exception for yourself there, though you probably won't admit it.

My oh my, what a convoluted moral compass you wield :rolleyes:

ETA: I find it ironic that you spend so much energy railing against women who "play the victim" or against those who, in your view, portray women as victims, yet you seem in recent posts to be playing that victim card yourself (complaining so loudly about the criticism directed against you). Just an observation.


How is there a small M? It's Murder. Sometimes it is understandable. But it is not understandable when it could have been EASILY avoided. Like use SOME form of birth control? Like that? See how simple that is????


I'm sorry you don't understand my point. But frankly? You're a guy. So check back in when you grow a uterus and we'll continue.


And for the record. Everyone who knows me on this site knows I never complain about anyone ever. I never report posts. (Actually until recently, I did report pedophile type posts but personally attacks on me?? LMAO ) I don't give a SHIP what your personal opinion of me is.

What I don't like, is people passing off emotional BS as logical thinking. You know, sort of like your posts?

[MattusMaximus]

I'm sorry you don't understand my point. But frankly? You're a guy. So check back in when you grow a uterus and we'll continue.

So only women* can have an opinion on this subject? I am not allowed to criticize you because I'm male? That sounds an awful lot like "playing the victim" to me... "oh boo hoo, he's being so big and mean to me, but he just can't understand so he should just stop criticizing me."

Seriously, stop whining so much. It's annoying.

*Sorry, only responsible women, as defined by you :rolleyes:

[truethat]

Uh huh. Whatever. The funny part is that I bet you think you're being awfully clever. doncha?

Care to actually discuss the topic? Or address what you mean by a small M?

[Complexity]

truethat - What bigoted nonsense.

Shame on you.

[truethat]

truethat - What bigoted nonsense.

Shame on you.



Oh come on. :cool::D You know I was teasing. In fact I bet more than a few guys on here could contribute to the "alternatives to vaginal intercourse" discussion. I'm still curious why women act as if there's no possible alternative to have sex if you don't happen to have a condom handy.

Seriously let's risk getting pregnant or try something else seems to cause a white hot sheen of freak out on this thread. Makes no sense to me at all.

[MattusMaximus]

Uh huh. Whatever. The funny part is that I bet you think you're being awfully clever. doncha?

Care to actually discuss the topic? Or address what you mean by a small M?

Hey, you're the one calling it "murder", not me. So you need to justify it, not me. Personally, I don't consider aborting an embryo or fetus murder.

But why even talk to me, truethat? I have my sexual organs on the outside, so it obviously doesn't matter to you. You don't need to go listening to any man when discussing or making decisions on this topic...

Which is ironic, because earlier weren't you berating those irresponsible women who went off and got abortions without talking to the fathers first? Yet here you play that card yourself, just as you carve out a nice, neat little exception for you and the women you judge to be "responsible" in the case of getting an abortion (I mean, "murdering their babies"; just want to stay consistent with your language).

Are you going to whine some more?

[MattusMaximus]

I'm sorry you don't understand my point. But frankly? You're a guy. So check back in when you grow a uterus and we'll continue.
You know I was teasing.

*slap!*

I'm sorry, baby. You know I love you.

*slap!*

:rolleyes:

[sgtbaker]

I never said the same half not using protection were the same half that had the repeat abortions.


And yet you keep pointing to the statistics and telling us to do the math, as if they are saying something more than numbers.

And I'm not interested in blaming the woman herself. At that point what is done is done.

I agree; what's done is done. All that's left is how to deal with the situation. Sitting around like a judge and jury, deciding whose "responsible and deserving of the right to choose," based on your measurements of responsibility is just playing armchair quarterback. It adds nothing to the discussions or solutions. It's simply, "I did it this way and that's what everyone else should do."

However the mentality of the "abortion movement" seems to promote the idea that women NEED to have sex and that it's not their fault if they don't use birth control.

You've repeatedly seen excuse after excuse after excuse trotted out as if a grown woman can't practice safe sex.

To be honest, I have been following this thread since the beginning and have not seen one single person treat sex as a necessity. As for fault, you seem to be the only one fixated on blaming rather than solutions.

I have not seen excuse after excuse of why women can't practice safe sex, I've seen people arguing real world issues where occassionally people have unprotected sex. You are the only one bringing blame and victimness into the conversation.

Some of the posters in this thread treat women like raging morons and then pretend they are the ones on the side of women.

Um no. I respect that a woman has enough intelligence to not have sex carelessly if she doesn't want to have an abortion or a baby.

I respect that a woman has the right to correct a mistake. If you want to equate that with being helpless, that's your mental gymnastics, not mine.

I am still waiting on your answer; Have you ever made an error in judgement? Assuming you have, because everyone has; how long should you have lived in the conditions of your mistake before you were allowed to attempt to alter the future outcome? How conducive to resolving that mistake would you rate the practice of reminding you that you made your choices?

You are mother, which means you know that giving birth is not a passing thing. It's not like; well you spend all your lunch money on the Monday, you should eat PB&J for the rest of the week and suffer the consequences of your own decisions, this is a baby that you somehow feel is a fitting consequence to a bad decision.

First a formost encourage young women to learn more about their ovulation cycles. While not totally reliant you can know when you are more likely to get pregnant than not.

Not totally reliant? If used correctly, it has a 9% failure rate, which leads me to wonder how many of the absence of protection abortions occur as a result of calendar miscalculations. Are they suddenly in the "responsible group deserving of the right to choose"?

I find it atrocious at how whenever this topic comes up, the idea of teaching some skills of abstinence is treated as if we're throwing women back into the dark ages.

Show me quotes that support that or I am going to have to assume it's another strawman.

How did I not get pregnant in two years of not really being able to afford condoms all the time? I used other forms of sexual activity. I also knew my cycle very well. Young girls should be taught about using their ovulation cycle to help avoid getting pregnant.

And since it's not that reliable...?
The calendar method can only predict what are most likely to be safe days. It is especially risky if your cycles are not always the same length. That's why it should always be used with other methods. Do not have unprotected intercourse on any day that the calendar method says is unsafe.

Effectiveness

Of 100 couples who use the calendar method correctly for one year, 9 will have a pregnancy.
http://www.plannedparenthood.org/health-topics/birth-control/fam-calendar-method-22139.htm

So I have to ask, were you using the highest risk method (calendar) while having unprotected sex or where you purely abstaining from sex? If you were abstaining from sex, knowing your cycle has nothing to do with avoiding pregnancy. If you were using the calendar method "sometimes" and abstaining from sex other times, you are a being a hypocrite. I taught my daughter the importance of knowing her cycle because that's the best way to tell if something is wrong. I will never ever give her the impression that it's even remotely a means of practicing safe sex. I would never, ever climb on my soap box and preach to others that I used the most unreliable method of birth control and was lucky enough to not get pregnant, therefor any other woman who has an unintended pregnancy should be deemed irresponsible.

But to fix this we need young women and women to take 100 percent responsibility for not getting pregnant. It's her body after all. What happens now is that when a girl gets pregnant we say "It takes two to tango" and hold the guy responsible.

I am all for education and responsibility. I am not for treating a pregnancy like a consequence and condemning a woman to a life of motherhood who is not emotionally, financially, or otherwise ready to be a mother.

Have you guys considered that a man has absolutely no say whatsoever if he doesn't want to be a father at a young age? If he and the girl both are willing to use abortion. The condom breaks. No one says to the guy "Poor guy, you don't have to have the baby." If that girl wants the baby he is forced to be a father. Period the end.

Biology isn't always fair. However, how does "poor guy" or "poor girl" help anything? It doesn't change the fact that it is the woman who carries the baby, the woman who gets the scars, stretchmarks, discomfort, and all the health risks involved. I feel for guys in that situation, I really do but when the risks and side effects can be shared, then I will agree to the decision being shared.

We tell boys, "then keep it in your pants." No one seems to have a problem advocating abstinence or "always use a condom" to a boy. So why should it be any different for a girl? Especially since she is the one who is going to get pregnant?

It's not different. Most prochoice people are strong advocates of protection and sex education. I don't think teaching a woman, before the fact, about the precautions she should be taking to protect herself is a bad thing. I think early sex ed is vital to reduce the amount of unwanted pregnancies and STD's. Once we get to the discussion of abortion, though, we are dealing with after the fact, at which time, all talks of precautions become meaningless.

Part of it is that a lot of these groups are not really interested in reducing the number of abortions because it is an industry and a business just like any other business. And so it's marketed as a woman's rights issue.

However, as I said, if I was a mother to a girl, I'd be teaching my daughter how not to get pregnant. Not how to assert her right to an abortion.

That whole statement, especially what I highlighted smacks of prolife propaganda. This is not about the right to an abortion, it's the right to female autonomy.

How is there a small M? It's Murder. Sometimes it is understandable. But it is not understandable when it could have been EASILY avoided. Like use SOME form of birth control? Like that? See how simple that is????


I'm sorry you don't understand my point. But frankly? You're a guy. So check back in when you grow a uterus and we'll continue.


And for the record. Everyone who knows me on this site knows I never complain about anyone ever. I never report posts. (Actually until recently, I did report pedophile type posts but personally attacks on me?? LMAO ) I don't give a SHIP what your personal opinion of me is.

What I don't like, is people passing off emotional BS as logical thinking. You know, sort of like your posts?

I think it's ironic that you insist on using a capital M to make a emotional plea and then accuse others of arguing from emotion. I think you know punctuation rules by now, murder is not a proper noun, it is not a personal title, nor is it a name so the only time it should be capitalized is if it's at the beginning of a sentence or the beginning of a quoted statement. Leave the emotion out of it and argue facts.

[catsmate1]

<snippage>Also Catsmate. The Sanger assertion is well known history, not propaganda. The things you are posting are propaganda. I've used reputable unbiased sources that you dismiss cause you don't wanna admit that it is factual.

Strawman. I've never denies the opinions of Margaret Sanger, however what I have pointed out is that they are irrelevant to the current ethos of Planned Parenthood. Unless you can show some evidence?


First a formost encourage young women to learn more about their ovulation cycles. While not totally reliant you can know when you are more likely to get pregnant than not.
Are you seriously proposing the 'rhythm method' or similar? 5% failure rate if carefully and rigidly adhered to.
I find it atrocious at how whenever this topic comes up, the idea of teaching some skills of abstinence is treated as if we're throwing women back into the dark ages.

Abstinence based sex education does not work. It leads to earlier sexual activity, more unplanned pregnancies and more STIs.

[truethat]

And yet you keep pointing to the statistics and telling us to do the math, as if they are saying something more than numbers.



I agree; what's done is done. All that's left is how to deal with the situation. Sitting around like a judge and jury, deciding whose "responsible and deserving of the right to choose," based on your measurements of responsibility is just playing armchair quarterback. It adds nothing to the discussions or solutions. It's simply, "I did it this way and that's what everyone else should do."


I will admit that loathe women who use abortion for birth control. But I would never judge a woman who had an abortion otherwise. I have stated that it should be safe and legal and RARE.

I did it this way? I DID IT THIS WAY? Sorry that's nonsense. Telling people to always use a condom is not arm chair quarterbacking. It's common sense.



To be honest, I have been following this thread since the beginning and have not seen one single person treat sex as a necessity. As for fault, you seem to be the only one fixated on blaming rather than solutions.

Really? That's why I've posted lots of solutions. Odd.

I have not seen excuse after excuse of why women can't practice safe sex, I've seen people arguing real world issues where occassionally people have unprotected sex. You are the only one bringing blame and victimness into the conversation.


I have. When I say "always use a condom" the answer is "some women can't afford condoms." I know that it might not be easy for everyone to get condoms in the middle east. But to suggest it is hard to get condoms in the US is stupid. There are free condoms in many places. And a pack of condoms can be bought for (looked it up) $20 bucks for 36 condoms. Which means you could have sex every single day for less than $1 a day and have a condom. If you can't afford that, then try using different kinds of sex. Also most women don't have sex while they have their period. So we have about 5 days that there's no sex. Then she knows she's likely not to get pregnant right after her period. Have sex during that week and always use a condom. During the week after try having sex different ways. Mix it up.




I respect that a woman has the right to correct a mistake. If you want to equate that with being helpless, that's your mental gymnastics, not mine.

I don't consider women helpless at all. People saying a woman doesn't have the intelligence not to have sex without a condom are the ones suggesting some sort of helplessness.

I am still waiting on your answer; Have you ever made an error in judgement? Assuming you have, because everyone has; how long should you have lived in the conditions of your mistake before you were allowed to attempt to alter the future outcome? How conducive to resolving that mistake would you rate the practice of reminding you that you made your choices?

What does any of that have to do with the discussion? If a woman has to have an abortion I would feel very bad for her. I wouldn't judge her.

You are mother, which means you know that giving birth is not a passing thing. It's not like; well you spend all your lunch money on the Monday, you should eat PB&J for the rest of the week and suffer the consequences of your own decisions, this is a baby that you somehow feel is a fitting consequence to a bad decision.

I agree. Giving birth is a HUGE consequence. So is murdering a person. So sex should be taken on very carefully if a woman doesn't want to have a baby or have an abortion.



Not totally reliant? If used correctly, it has a 9% failure rate, which leads me to wonder how many of the absence of protection abortions occur as a result of calendar miscalculations. Are they suddenly in the "responsible group deserving of the right to choose"?

Once again you are interpreting what I am saying backwards. See my response to catsmate.



Show me quotes that support that or I am going to have to assume it's another strawman.



And since it's not that reliable...?

http://www.plannedparenthood.org/health-topics/birth-control/fam-calendar-method-22139.htm

So I have to ask, were you using the highest risk method (calendar) while having unprotected sex or where you purely abstaining from sex? If you were abstaining from sex, knowing your cycle has nothing to do with avoiding pregnancy. If you were using the calendar method "sometimes" and abstaining from sex other times, you are a being a hypocrite. I taught my daughter the importance of knowing her cycle because that's the best way to tell if something is wrong. I will never ever give her the impression that it's even remotely a means of practicing safe sex. I would never, ever climb on my soap box and preach to others that I used the most unreliable method of birth control and was lucky enough to not get pregnant, therefor any other woman who has an unintended pregnancy should be deemed irresponsible.


Really. So you would tell your daughter that if she's very likely to get pregnant it's not something to pay attention to? Why?


I am all for education and responsibility. I am not for treating a pregnancy like a consequence and condemning a woman to a life of motherhood who is not emotionally, financially, or otherwise ready to be a mother.


I feel the same way. But funny how men don't get the same option. If a man is not emotionally, financially or otherwise ready to be a father society says TOO BAD. If the woman wants to have the baby he will be forced to accept responsibility. Why is this ok?


Biology isn't always fair. However, how does "poor guy" or "poor girl" help anything? It doesn't change the fact that it is the woman who carries the baby, the woman who gets the scars, stretchmarks, discomfort, and all the health risks involved. I feel for guys in that situation, I really do but when the risks and side effects can be shared, then I will agree to the decision being shared.


Your comparing stretch marks to 18 years of responsibility? OK.


It's not different. Most prochoice people are strong advocates of protection and sex education. I don't think teaching a woman, before the fact, about the precautions she should be taking to protect herself is a bad thing. I think early sex ed is vital to reduce the amount of unwanted pregnancies and STD's. Once we get to the discussion of abortion, though, we are dealing with after the fact, at which time, all talks of [/B]precautions become meaningless.


That is not true. Because as I've shown HALF OF ALL ABORTIONS ARE REPEAT ABORTIONS. Which means we are failing to educate women who have already found themselves in a desperate situation.


That whole statement, especially what I highlighted smacks of prolife propaganda. This is not about the right to an abortion, it's the right to female autonomy.

Female autonomy begins with respecting her body and her health.



I think it's ironic that you insist on using a capital M to make a emotional plea and then accuse others of arguing from emotion. I think you know punctuation rules by now, murder is not a proper noun, it is not a personal title, nor is it a name so the only time it should be capitalized is if it's at the beginning of a sentence or the beginning of a quoted statement. Leave the emotion out of it and argue facts.


You're seriously throwing this down? It's a posting quibble. Come on. When I say murder, I don't mean it as an emotional statement. I mean it as a matter of fact statement.













Strawman. I've never denies the opinions of Margaret Sanger, however what I have pointed out is that they are irrelevant to the current ethos of Planned Parenthood. Unless you can show some evidence?


Are you seriously proposing the 'rhythm method' or similar? 5% failure rate if carefully and rigidly adhered to.

Abstinence based sex education does not work. It leads to earlier sexual activity, more unplanned pregnancies and more STIs.


The reason I brought up Sanger is that others brought up ONE example of ONE girl who had a bad experience with an adoption agency and tried to present this as proof that all adoption agencies were the same. I agree it is irrelevant. So is the Sanger issue. But I could certainly do the same thing and point out ONE woman who was forcibly sterilized. It's irrelevant.

I am not proposing that the "rhythm method" is a way to use birth control. What part of ALWAYS USE A CONDOM don't you understand? What I am saying is that if a girl knows that she is very likely to get pregnant at certain points during her cycle she may abstain during those days even though she is ALWAYS using a condom.

Stop trying to twist my words. If you read the link I showed you at the end it clearly points out that it is unreliable as a form of birth control and the girl should always use a condom. Did you even read it?

What I'm saying is that there seems to be this idea that there is nothing a girl can do if she doesn't have a condom and wants to have sex.

Not true. She can different kinds of sex. And if you can't afford that many condoms knowing that during a particular week you are very likely to get pregnant you might want to have different sex than vaginal intercourse during that week.

My answers are logical. I am not using emotion. You are so determined to make it an attack on women that you are deciding to look at every idea from that lens.

If the goal is not to get pregnant in the first place I would be sure a young woman knew everything possible to help her. Abstinence doesn't have to be a long term solution. It can be used periodically with condoms to reduce your risk of getting pregnant. It doesn't mean that you can never have sex but that if you are having sex there are ways you can do so responsibly.

By pushing the agenda that it's not possible to do this if you are poor, you are promoting the idea that women are at the mercy of luck not to get pregnant.

While that does come into it at some point. There are many things a woman can do to increase her chances of not getting pregnant.

[bookitty]

I never said the same half not using protection were the same half that had the repeat abortions.

And I'm not interested in blaming the woman herself. At that point what is done is done.

However the mentality of the "abortion movement" seems to promote the idea that women NEED to have sex and that it's not their fault if they don't use birth control.

You've repeatedly seen excuse after excuse after excuse trotted out as if a grown woman can't practice safe sex.

Some of the posters in this thread treat women like raging morons and then pretend they are the ones on the side of women.

Um no. I respect that a woman has enough intelligence to not have sex carelessly if she doesn't want to have an abortion or a baby.








First a formost encourage young women to learn more about their ovulation cycles. While not totally reliant you can know when you are more likely to get pregnant than not.

I find it atrocious at how whenever this topic comes up, the idea of teaching some skills of abstinence is treated as if we're throwing women back into the dark ages.

How did I not get pregnant in two years of not really being able to afford condoms all the time? I used other forms of sexual activity. I also knew my cycle very well. Young girls should be taught about using their ovulation cycle to help avoid getting pregnant.

But to fix this we need young women and women to take 100 percent responsibility for not getting pregnant. It's her body after all. What happens now is that when a girl gets pregnant we say "It takes two to tango" and hold the guy responsible.

Have you guys considered that a man has absolutely no say whatsoever if he doesn't want to be a father at a young age? If he and the girl both are willing to use abortion. The condom breaks. No one says to the guy "Poor guy, you don't have to have the baby." If that girl wants the baby he is forced to be a father. Period the end.

We tell boys, "then keep it in your pants." No one seems to have a problem advocating abstinence or "always use a condom" to a boy. So why should it be any different for a girl? Especially since she is the one who is going to get pregnant?

Part of it is that a lot of these groups are not really interested in reducing the number of abortions because it is an industry and a business just like any other business. And so it's marketed as a woman's rights issue.

However, as I said, if I was a mother to a girl, I'd be teaching my daughter how not to get pregnant. Not how to assert her right to an abortion.

http://www.health.arizona.edu/health_topics/sexual_health/sextalk/2005/sextalk.10.24.05.pdf


Are you really ranting about "responsibility" while promoting the RHYTHM METHOD?

That would be really funny, if it wasn't for the fact that scientifically unsound birth control advice is the the reason why some women end up with an unplanned pregnancy.

[Hawk one]

You're seriously throwing this down? It's a posting quibble. Come on. When I say murder, I don't mean it as an emotional statement. I mean it as a matter of fact statement.

No, it's an emotional statement, because aborting an embryo or first trimester fetus is something a lot of people don't consider to be murder. To say that it's a matter of fact is contested at best, and simply a lie at worst. If you want to discuss the facts about abortion, then refer to it by its factual name: Abortion.

[truethat]

No, it's an emotional statement, because aborting an embryo or first trimester fetus is something a lot of people don't consider to be murder. To say that it's a matter of fact is contested at best, and simply a lie at worst. If you want to discuss the facts about abortion, then refer to it by its factual name: Abortion.

That's actually fair. And it's true I looked it up and murder is "unlawful" taking of life, so anyway from a legal stand point it's not murder. In my opinion for me I feel that each person has a right to life and I don't have a right to take away another person's life. So I would never have an abortion. If I couldn't raise the baby I'd give it up for adoption. I tend to think of it as someone telling me I should not have been born and taking away my life. So I see it that way. I know that others do not. I do not expect them to. It's just my opinion.

But I agree. It's abortion. So let's stick with that term.

Are you really ranting about "responsibility" while promoting the RHYTHM METHOD?

That would be really funny, if it wasn't for the fact that scientifically unsound birth control advice is the the reason why some women end up with an unplanned pregnancy.


You are the third person in this thread who immediately thought that I was pushing the rhythm method. So you can clearly see why I roll my eyes at most of your posts. You have a knee jerk reaction to most of my posts and don't normally seem to post replies that reveal any sort of critical thinking. No just that you want to defend women from evil people like me with stupid suggestions.


Read what I wrote to catsmate. Remember

Truethat says ALWAYS USE A CONDOM. Remember that. So when using your ovulation cycle you aren't using it as a form of birth control. You are using THE CONDOM as the birth control.

Neeeeext think. Gee I wonder why it would be useful to know my ovulation cycle? How could that help women avoid getting pregnant?


Stupid people will think "So I can have sex without birth control on the days I am least likely to get pregnant"

WINNAH And they wind up pregnant.

Smart people will think "So I can avoid having sex on the days I am most likely to get pregnant. Even with a condom I will be mindful of those days."

And they don't.


Seriously man. Shaking my head over here.

[bookitty]

That's actually fair. And it's true I looked it up and murder is "unlawful" taking of life, so anyway from a legal stand point it's not murder. In my opinion for me I feel that each person has a right to life and I don't have a right to take away another person's life. So I would never have an abortion. If I couldn't raise the baby I'd give it up for adoption. I tend to think of it as someone telling me I should not have been born and taking away my life. So I see it that way. I know that others do not. I do not expect them to. It's just my opinion.

But I agree. It's abortion. So let's stick with that term.




You are the third person in this thread who immediately thought that I was pushing the rhythm method. So you can clearly see why I roll my eyes at most of your posts. You have a knee jerk reaction to most of my posts and don't normally seem to post replies that reveal any sort of critical thinking. No just that you want to defend women from evil people like me with stupid suggestions.


Read what I wrote to catsmate. Remember

Truethat says ALWAYS USE A CONDOM. Remember that. So when using your ovulation cycle you aren't using it as a form of birth control. You are using THE CONDOM as the birth control.

Neeeeext think. Gee I wonder why it would be useful to know my ovulation cycle? How could that help women avoid getting pregnant?


Stupid people will think "So I can have sex without birth control on the days I am least likely to get pregnant"

WINNAH And they wind up pregnant.

Smart people will think "So I can avoid having sex on the days I am most likely to get pregnant. Even with a condom I will be mindful of those days."

And they don't.


Seriously man. Shaking my head over here.

Truethat experienced an unplanned pregnancy while using a condom. Apparently Truethat is above taking the advice she dishes out to other women.

[truethat]

And bookitty skirts the issue by making a personal attack yet again. Seriously bookitty read it until it sinks in. Over and over again. Hopefully eventually it will.

And NO Truethat is not above taking the advice I dished out. I was fully willing to have a baby. I was not willing to have a abortion. I was in a position where I could have a child. It would have been my third child at that point. And I made it clear to my sexual partner that if I got pregnant I would not have an abortion.

I know it's hard for you to see the distinction. But the distinction is that I was willing to have the baby. If I didn't want to have a baby and I knew I wouldn't have an abortion I would have not had sex at all. Like I did a year prior. Capice?

See this isn't just about having abortions. It's also about having unwanted pregnancies where the mother doesn't have the abortion and can't afford to raise the child. Abortion is really the smaller issue in all this.

[bookitty]

And bookitty skirts the issue by making a personal attack yet again. Seriously bookitty read it until it sinks in. Over and over again. Hopefully eventually it will.

And NO Truethat is not above taking the advice I dished out. I was fully willing to have a baby. I was not willing to have a abortion. I was in a position where I could have a child. It would have been my third child at that point. And I made it clear to my sexual partner that if I got pregnant I would not have an abortion.

I know it's hard for you to see the distinction. But the distinction is that I was willing to have the baby. If I didn't want to have a baby and I knew I wouldn't have an abortion I would have not had sex at all. Like I did a year prior. Capice?

See this isn't just about having abortions. It's also about having unwanted pregnancies where the mother doesn't have the abortion and can't afford to raise the child. Abortion is really the smaller issue in all this.

The topic is abortion.

Page after page you've filled with condemnation for women who have an unwanted pregnancy and scientifically unsound advice for preventing pregnancy. At the same time, you experienced the exact type of birth control failure that you expect them to avoid.

If you were trying to get pregnant, you would not have used a condom. You were trying to prevent pregnancy. Your method failed. You are exactly as "irresponsible" as the women you've been so adamantly insulting.

Trying to back out now by saying that your third pregnancy was an acceptable result of birth control failure is just pathetic.

[truethat]

Actually no it is scientifically sound. It's backed up scientifically, medically etc. Frankly bookitty I'm surprised. Even for you. If you ask a doctor the best form of birth control he's going to suggest you always use a condom. If you read the guttmacher report it says consistent and adequate use of birth control is the number one way to reduce pregnancies. And abstinence is the ONLY 100 percent effective way of preventing pregnancy.

But you don't like these facts why?



As for my example. Not really. All of my pregnancies were unexpected. I've never liked the idea of "trying to have a baby." But that's just my personal opinion.

The facts of my case speak for myself. When I was unwilling to have a baby and didn't want to have an abortion I didn't have sex. And guess what bookitty.

I didn't get pregnant. Imagine that. Astonishing really.

[bookitty]

Actually no it is scientifically sound. It's backed up scientifically, medically etc. Frankly bookitty I'm surprised. Even for you. If you ask a doctor the best form of birth control he's going to suggest you always use a condom. If you read the guttmacher report it says consistent and adequate use of birth control is the number one way to reduce pregnancies. And abstinence is the ONLY 100 percent effective way of preventing pregnancy.

But you don't like these facts why?



As for my example. Not really. All of my pregnancies were unexpected. I've never liked the idea of "trying to have a baby." But that's just my personal opinion.

The facts of my case speak for myself. When I was unwilling to have a baby and didn't want to have an abortion I didn't have sex. And guess what bookitty.

I didn't get pregnant. Imagine that. Astonishing really.

So when you didn't want a child, you didn't have sex but when you still didn't want a child, you had sex with a condom. Which broke. But that's ok because you never wanted to plan kids. And all women should be just like you.

[truethat]

So when you didn't want a child, you didn't have sex but when you still didn't want a child, you had sex with a condom. Which broke. But that's ok because you never wanted to plan kids. And all women should be just like you.



Still trying to make this about me. Because you can't handle the statistics and facts. Do you realize it is impossible to have a logical conversation with you? You refuse facts and always try to make it a personal emotional issue. What is wrong with you?


Go to the facts. But hey I'll throw you a bone. Truethat is a horrible person. Got it.

Can you handle the facts and statistics? Or is this going to turn into A Few Good Men.

[Aepervius]

Are you really ranting about "responsibility" while promoting the RHYTHM METHOD?

That would be really funny, if it wasn't for the fact that scientifically unsound birth control advice is the the reason why some women end up with an unplanned pregnancy.

My 3 sisters are planned kids of the auger method (IIRC it is called that way), I am an unplanned results of that method :D.

[Moss]

My 3 sisters are planned kids of the auger method (IIRC it is called that way), I am an unplanned results of that method :D.

Semiofftopic:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Augur :)

[myowninvention]

[...snip]

Truethat says ALWAYS USE A CONDOM. Remember that. So when using your ovulation cycle you aren't using it as a form of birth control. You are using THE CONDOM as the birth control.

Neeeeext think. Gee I wonder why it would be useful to know my ovulation cycle? How could that help women avoid getting pregnant?


Stupid people will think "So I can have sex without birth control on the days I am least likely to get pregnant"

WINNAH And they wind up pregnant.

Smart people will think "So I can avoid having sex on the days I am most likely to get pregnant. Even with a condom I will be mindful of those days."

And they don't.


Seriously man. Shaking my head over here.

See it's that, right there, that I have a problem with.

I don't see anyone here arguing with you that it would be WONDERFUL if everyone used birth control, had sex responsibly, and didn't need abortions. That's the goal.

What we have a problem with is the assumption that the reason women are not using birth control is stupidity and irresponsibility. And really, look at it from my point of view. I've been a social worker for 8 years, and once my kids are in school I plan to go back to that profession. The more we can reduce unwanted pregnancies, the easier my job will be. I care very very deeply about this issue. If I were to think as you seem to, and simply run on the assumption that women don't use birth control because they are just stupid or irresponsible, I'd have to give up hope now. There's not much that I, or anyone else can do about that.

Fortunately, I don't believe that. I don't think it's making excuses for women to look at the statistics and say that unwanted pregnancies and poverty are linked. Why that so, and what can we do about it? It doesn't absolve anyone of personal responsibility if we investigate that link, and come to the conclusion that it is more difficult to gain access to birth control, prenatal care, and social support when one is poor. It does, however, point us in a direction which we as a society can move our efforts.

[catsmate1]

Actually no it is scientifically sound. It's backed up scientifically, medically etc. Frankly bookitty I'm surprised. Even for you. If you ask a doctor the best form of birth control he's going to suggest you always use a condom. If you read the guttmacher report it says consistent and adequate use of birth control is the number one way to reduce pregnancies. And abstinence is the ONLY 100 percent effective way of preventing pregnancy.
I'm not sure what this is supposed to mean, but


condoms are not the most effective form of birth control. By far (http://www.plannedparenthood.org/health-topics/birth-control/birth-control-effectiveness-chart-22710.htm).
abstinence is great, however we live in the real world where it doesn't happen. Especially for teenagers.

Why not advocate mandatory sterilisation?:rolleyes:

But you don't like these facts why?
What facts?

[myowninvention]

http://m.theglobeandmail.com/life/canadas-teen-birth-and-abortion-rate-drops-by-369-per-cent/article1581673/?service=mobile

[ Better access to contraception, higher quality sex education and shifting social norms have contributed to a 36.9 per cent decline in Canada’s teen birth and abortion rate between 1996 and 2006

Either these methods worked, or Canadiangirls just decided to be less 'stupid'.

[truethat]

http://m.theglobeandmail.com/life/canadas-teen-birth-and-abortion-rate-drops-by-369-per-cent/article1581673/?service=mobile



Either these methods worked, or Canadiangirls just decided to be less 'stupid'.

What part of better education doesn't enter into the equation of less stupid for you?

[truethat]

I'm not sure what this is supposed to mean, but


condoms are not the most effective form of birth control. By far (http://www.plannedparenthood.org/health-topics/birth-control/birth-control-effectiveness-chart-22710.htm).
abstinence is great, however we live in the real world where it doesn't happen. Especially for teenagers.

Why not advocate mandatory sterilisation?:rolleyes: APPEAL TO EMOTION YET AGAIN. COLOR ME SURPRISED!!!

What facts?

Comments in BOLD added by truethat



Hmmm continued not reading I guess. Only 18% of abortions are had by teenagers. Around 33% of abortions are had by women 20-25 and 49% of abortions are had by women over 25. You were saying.


I'd like to make clear my stance since I've said a few things that people are taking the wrong way.

I am pro life. FOR ME. I'm not necessarily saying that all women should not have an abortion. It's a medical procedure. I personally consider it murder but I also understand that others don't view it that way. I'm not here to change their mind.


The reason I speak out so much about it, is that I am tired of women promoting this highly emotional ridiculous suggestion that it's rape victims, desperate teen agers, incest survivors at 10 that are having abortions.

The vast number of abortions are had by intelligent women who were irresponsible when it comes to having sex.

If you don't fall into this category I am not talking about you.


Not only do the abortion statistics piss me off, but also the unwanted pregnancies.


A woman over 21 should not be getting pregnant unintentionally without any sort of forethought to the matter. There's simply no excuse.


Teenaged girls seem to be showing more intelligence for not getting pregnant than woman over 25. So what does that tell you???

Hmm?




See it's that, right there, that I have a problem with.

I don't see anyone here arguing with you that it would be WONDERFUL if everyone used birth control, had sex responsibly, and didn't need abortions. That's the goal.

What we have a problem with is the assumption that the reason women are not using birth control is stupidity and irresponsibility. And really, look at it from my point of view. I've been a social worker for 8 years, and once my kids are in school I plan to go back to that profession. The more we can reduce unwanted pregnancies, the easier my job will be. I care very very deeply about this issue. If I were to think as you seem to, and simply run on the assumption that women don't use birth control because they are just stupid or irresponsible, I'd have to give up hope now. There's not much that I, or anyone else can do about that.


Actually that's exactly what the statistics show. Not that they were stupid, (I know I used that word) but that they were irresponsible. And Yes they were. The majority were and ARE. And that's what I'm discussing. I was a social worker (case manager) for a while and so I can tell why you are asking for numbers and information.


You and I also spoke to the MEME and the MEME that is concerning me are women who will bend over backwards to make excuses for unwanted pregnancy. It's lowering the bar rather than raising the bar. The bar needs to be raised. That's my issue. My strong logical approach is not to dismiss the obvious emotional reactions to unwanted pregnancy. Once it's done it's done. But the women playing the victim violin NEED TO GO. Because they are not helping women at all.

Fortunately, I don't believe that. I don't think it's making excuses for women to look at the statistics and say that unwanted pregnancies and poverty are linked. Why that so, and what can we do about it? It doesn't absolve anyone of personal responsibility if we investigate that link, and come to the conclusion that it is more difficult to gain access to birth control, prenatal care, and social support when one is poor. It does, however, point us in a direction which we as a society can move our efforts.

Comments in BOLD added by truethat


Exactly and also shifting society into a position where we are addressing the reality instead of dramatic stories. The reality is that many women have unprotected sex with their boyfriends or men in their lives because the men ask them to. And this is completely the opposite of female autonomy. We need to encourage women to accept that the reality that they MUST always use a condom. And if a guy says NO. Then don't have sex. Period the end.

I know it's not something that will be easy to do. But this is a shift that needs to happen. In addition by encouraging young women to pay attention to their ovulation cycles and drumming into their head that during certain weeks they absolutely should not have sex at all then it might help to empower them to say no. There is this attachment of approval to having sex that I do think hinders many women. Especially young women.

[bookitty]

Still trying to make this about me. Because you can't handle the statistics and facts. Do you realize it is impossible to have a logical conversation with you? You refuse facts and always try to make it a personal emotional issue. What is wrong with you?


Go to the facts. But hey I'll throw you a bone. Truethat is a horrible person. Got it.

Can you handle the facts and statistics? Or is this going to turn into A Few Good Men.

facts - 50% of abortions were had by women who were using birth control

According to you, those women were "stupid" because their birth control failed. You had a birth control method fail so, by your own definition, you are a "stupid" and "irresponsible" woman.

Personally, I don't believe that. I believe in facts. Women are fertile for approximately 3-5 days a month for 30 to 35 years. During that time, their ovulation schedules can shift for a variety of reasons, their birth control can fail, they can be denied access to birth control through their insurance companies, they can be fed misinformation by either friends or authority figures, they can be in the horrible position of not being able to afford birth control, they can rely on breast feeding, they can have a misstep with a partner, or they can do everything right and get knocked up.

And that's just the short list of possibilities. Unless you happen to be that pregnant woman, there is no way to tell what was irresponsible behavior and what was just a bad toss of the dice.

ETA: And the "dramatic stories" are like so 8 pages ago.

[Moss]

Now might be the time for both sides to take a breath and get some air...
I'm so going to suffer for that, am I?

[sgtbaker]

You're seriously throwing this down? It's a posting quibble. Come on. When I say murder, I don't mean it as an emotional statement. I mean it as a matter of fact statement.


Which it is still not scientifically a matter of fact so what we have left is your emotional response.

[QUOTE]I will admit that loathe women who use abortion for birth control. But I would never judge a woman who had an abortion otherwise. I have stated that it should be safe and legal and RARE.

How do you know who is who? How far into a woman's personal life are you willing to pry before you can decide which one is the idiot that got knocked up, which one is the termination of pregnancy due to health of the mother/child, which one is rape, and which one is a repeat offender? It's not your business unless you intend on making sure all the unwanted babies are cared for.

I did it this way? I DID IT THIS WAY? Sorry that's nonsense. Telling people to always use a condom is not arm chair quarterbacking. It's common sense.

I did it this way? I DID IT THIS WAY? Sorry that's nonsense. Telling people to always use a condom is not arm chair quarterbacking. It's common sense.

I don't know any simpler way to put it, when dealing with sex education, yes, YES I emphatically agree, teach people to always wear a condom. When discussing abortion, she's ALREADY PREGNANT. It's a moot point.

Really? That's why I've posted lots of solutions. Odd.

No, you've posted prevention which NO ONE HERE IS AGAINST but again, when discussion abortion, it's a day late and a dollar short.

I have. When I say "always use a condom" the answer is "some women can't afford condoms." I know that it might not be easy for everyone to get condoms in the middle east. But to suggest it is hard to get condoms in the US is stupid. There are free condoms in many places. And a pack of condoms can be bought for (looked it up) $20 bucks for 36 condoms. Which means you could have sex every single day for less than $1 a day and have a condom. If you can't afford that, then try using different kinds of sex. Also most women don't have sex while they have their period. So we have about 5 days that there's no sex. Then she knows she's likely not to get pregnant right after her period. Have sex during that week and always use a condom. During the week after try having sex different ways. Mix it up.

If you are suggesting that one should always use a condom, please explain what the point of the calendar method is. Are you actually saying now that if a woman gets pregnant while using a condom, she's still irresponsible because she didn't know her cycle?

I don't consider women helpless at all. People saying a woman doesn't have the intelligence not to have sex without a condom are the ones suggesting some sort of helplessness.

You are the only one saying this. You are the one equating an unintentional pregnancy with lack of intelligence, not anyone else, just you. This is entirely your contruct.

What does any of that have to do with the discussion? If a woman has to have an abortion I would feel very bad for her. I wouldn't judge her.

Don't dodge, answer the question. Have you ever had a lapse in judgement, ever in your life; even if it has nothing to do with sex?

I agree. Giving birth is a HUGE consequence. So is murdering a person. So sex should be taken on very carefully if a woman doesn't want to have a baby or have an abortion.

The big if is IF another woman sees abortion as murder. I do not see removing cells as an abortion. I did back when I was catholic and believed in souls and that life began at conception but I no do not see it that way, anymore. Even the idea of the 20 week cutoff is based on an assumption that the fetus can feel pain but not all doctors believe that either. Once it becomes a viable life that can live outside the uterus, the area gets more grey but even that is a case by case basis, for which I am not a judge because I do not have to live with the consequences of another woman's decision.

Once again you are interpreting what I am saying backwards. See my response to catsmate.

No, you are backpeddling. You were responding to myowninvention's question about dealing with lack of affordability of birthcontrol

I think we understand your perspective. What I really want to know is what do you think we can do to change these statistics- how can we get more people to change their practices regarding safe sex. Regardless of whether you consider it an excuse or an explanation, the fact is that poverty and lack of birth control are correlated. So how do we, as a society approach the problem?

You replied to that by saying a woman should know her cycle. Then you went on to talk about how you managed to not get pregnant in for two years of not always being able to afford condoms by knowing your cycle and using other sex acts.

So I have to ask, were you using the highest risk method (calendar) while having unprotected sex or where you purely abstaining from sex? If you were abstaining from sex, knowing your cycle has nothing to do with avoiding pregnancy. If you were using the calendar method "sometimes" and abstaining from sex other times, you are a being a hypocrite. I taught my daughter the importance of knowing her cycle because that's the best way to tell if something is wrong. I will never ever give her the impression that it's even remotely a means of practicing safe sex. I would never, ever climb on my soap box and preach to others that I used the most unreliable method of birth control and was lucky enough to not get pregnant, therefor any other woman who has an unintended pregnancy should be deemed irresponsible.


Really. So you would tell your daughter that if she's very likely to get pregnant it's not something to pay attention to? Why?

Answer my question, where you fully abstaining from sex when you couldn't afford condoms or using the calendar method?

Cute but I said I wouldn't ever give my daughter the impression that a calendar method is safe sex.

I feel the same way. But funny how men don't get the same option. If a man is not emotionally, financially or otherwise ready to be a father society says TOO BAD. If the woman wants to have the baby he will be forced to accept responsibility. Why is this ok?

I don't see why you care, either way. If she had an abortion because he didn't want it or couldn't afford it, it's still murder in your eyes. Stomping your feet and calling it not fair adds nothing. But to answer that, it's an acceptable slant to maintain a womans autonomy.

Your comparing stretch marks to 18 years of responsibility? OK.

Well, sure, if you want to overlook the health risks, scars, and discomfort for 9 months, that I also mentioned. Can he take any of that from her? Nope, biologically unfair situation for women but it is what it is.

That is not true. Because as I've shown HALF OF ALL ABORTIONS ARE REPEAT ABORTIONS. Which means we are failing to educate women who have already found themselves in a desperate situation.

AGAIN; how many of those repeat abortions are surgical procedures for women who's water broke long before it was even possible for the fetus to survive outside the uterus? How many of them were removal of fetuses that were malformed? How many of them were dead cells?

Female autonomy begins with respecting her body and her health.

Wrong! Try this time, without the pleas, autonomy has nothing to do with respecting the body or health and insisting that one ought to live by your code when deciding for their own body is the opposite of autonomy.

noun, plural -mies.
1. independence or freedom, as of the will or one's actions: the autonomy of the individual.
2. the condition of being autonomous; self-government, or the right of self-government; independence: The rebels demanded autonomy from Spain.
3. a self-governing community. http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/autonomy

[myowninvention]

The vast number of abortions are had by intelligent women who were irresponsible when it comes to having sex.



<snip>
Exactly and also shifting society into a position where we are addressing the reality instead of dramatic stories. The reality is that many women have unprotected sex with their boyfriends or men in their lives because the men ask them to. And this is completely the opposite of female autonomy. We need to encourage women to accept that the reality that they MUST always use a condom. And if a guy says NO. Then don't have sex. Period the end.

I know it's not something that will be easy to do. But this is a shift that needs to happen. In addition by encouraging young women to pay attention to their ovulation cycles and drumming into their head that during certain weeks they absolutely should not have sex at all then it might help to empower them to say no. There is this attachment of approval to having sex that I do think hinders many women. Especially young women.


I'm fighting so hard against this argument that women don't use birth control due to irresponsibility because it's simply not the whole picture.

Educating women about their bodies, the forms of birth control available to them, and empowering them to make informed decisions regarding sex is great- it's a lot of what I fight for, and, as shown in the article I linked to earlier, it works, to a point. But it's never the whole picture.

Pointing out that every case is different, that there are many reasons why women have sex without protection, is accepting reality, not making excuses. If we attempt to paint all women with this brush of simply being irresponsible, we ignore real problems that women are facing.

Why, if irresponsibility is the main cause of abortions, are American black women so much more likely then their white counterparts to have one? Or why are women from Quebec having more and more abortions while the rest of Canada have less and less? Why (yes, I know, I keep bringing it up) are poor women so much more likely to have an unintended pregnancy? Why are women who already have one or more children more likely then those who are childless to have an abortion? Are all of these groups of women simply 'less responsible'? Or can we move away from the idea of it being solely about responsibility (and intelligence) and look at what other factors are influencing all of these separate groups. It's not the same factors for each group.

When we keep bringing up other possible reasons why women aren't using birth control, we are not simply trying to make excuses for whatever percentage of women it is who are simply being irresponsible (which number, in spite of what you say, the statistics do not tell us), we are pointing out that there are many many different reasons why women have abortions and without addressing these different reasons, we will only be able to address a subset of the whole, and we will never effectively bring the numbers down.

[myowninvention]

Now might be the time for both sides to take a breath and get some air...
I'm so going to suffer for that, am I?

Noooo! I'm recovering from surgery and nursing a 1 month old, I need a good heated discussion to keep me occupied. Otherwise I' might get up from the computer and try to do things (which is why this recovery is taking so long in the first place)






ok fine, you're probably right....

[SezMe]

Hmmm <snip>
In this post you inserted two paragraphs of your own text into myowninvention's post. Stop it. Don't modify someone else's post.

[MattusMaximus]

So when you didn't want a child, you didn't have sex but when you still didn't want a child, you had sex with a condom. Which broke. But that's ok because you never wanted to plan kids. And all women should be just like you.

I actually think that truethat is pro-choice; it's just that she feels the need to impose her choice(s) on everyone else by defining when it is and isn't appropriate to have an abortion. Hence her rather arbitrarily defined (and applied) definition of "responsibility", which of course would never apply to a woman in her situation.

Ah, the irony.

Oops, I forgot. Because I have a penis, I'm not allowed to comment on these issues or criticize truethat :rolleyes:

[MattusMaximus]

Now might be the time for both sides to take a breath and get some air...
I'm so going to suffer for that, am I?

I'm going to assume you're male, and suggest that you shut up because you cannot possibly add anything to this discussion.

[/channeling truethat]

;)

[truethat]

I'm fighting so hard against this argument that women don't use birth control due to irresponsibility because it's simply not the whole picture.


Unfortunately yes it is. This is what the statistics show. Why are you debating it?

Do you have information that proves otherwise?

If half the women having abortions state they were not using birth control when they got pregnant and only 18% of abortions are had by teenagers then what does that tell you?

If half of all abortions performed are repeat abortions what does that tell you.


It tells me that overall half of the abortions being had, one way or the other are due to IRRESPONSIBILITY.

That's what it tells me. Unless you argue that women are idiots.

I don't believe that.


Educating women about their bodies, the forms of birth control available to them, and empowering them to make informed decisions regarding sex is great- it's a lot of what I fight for, and, as shown in the article I linked to earlier, it works, to a point. But it's never the whole picture.

Pointing out that every case is different, that there are many reasons why women have sex without protection, is accepting reality, not making excuses. If we attempt to paint all women with this brush of simply being irresponsible, we ignore real problems that women are facing.

No there isn't . There's one reason that women have sex without protection. And only one.

They don't take personal responsibility for not getting pregnant. Slice it, dice it any way you want it, it's not rape victims, teen agers and preteen incest victims that are having the majority of abortions. It is irresponsible women.


What problem is there in "not having sex." Could you explain to me the problem associated with not having sex? You see how it's this perpetuation of the victim meme. What problem is going to happen if a woman abstains from sex?







Why, if irresponsibility is the main cause of abortions, are American black women so much more likely then their white counterparts to have one? Or why are women from Quebec having more and more abortions while the rest of Canada have less and less? Why (yes, I know, I keep bringing it up) are poor women so much more likely to have an unintended pregnancy? Why are women who already have one or more children more likely then those who are childless to have an abortion? Are all of these groups of women simply 'less responsible'? Or can we move away from the idea of it being solely about responsibility (and intelligence) and look at what other factors are influencing all of these separate groups. It's not the same factors for each group.


Poor women are often sold the meme that they are not responsible for their lives. The government and society are. So they don't feel the personal responsibility for not getting pregnant. Many times in these cases they are children of mothers raised on welfare and so it's normal for them to get pregnant and go on welfare. It's a huge problem. Do a bit of research and you will find this is part of the problem. And it is exacerbated by the "Women are Victims" Choir that constantly repeats the refrain of "You aren't responsible for what you do....you're a victim.....you'll die if you don't have sex!!!"

Are you aware that the cause of this problem is sex? Not breathing?

When we keep bringing up other possible reasons why women aren't using birth control, we are not simply trying to make excuses for whatever percentage of women it is who are simply being irresponsible (which number, in spite of what you say, the statistics do not tell us), we are pointing out that there are many many different reasons why women have abortions and without addressing these different reasons, we will only be able to address a subset of the whole, and we will never effectively bring the numbers down.

Comments in BOLD added by truethat




Yes you are. And you are perpetuating that at the end of the day "it's not her fault" "it's not her responsibility" Remember that meme you were so worried about? Yeah there it is right there.

[truethat]

In this post you inserted two paragraphs of your own text into myowninvention's post. Stop it. Don't modify someone else's post.

I clearly bolded the parts I inserted. Facepalm.

[Silly Green Monkey]

Multiquote is your friend. I don't read your quoted sections.

The statistics DON'T show what you claim they do, because the numbers cannot show how many women pregnant and aborting without using birth control WANTED TO HAVE BABIES. You are simply assuming every single person who aborted DIDN'T want a baby and shouldn't have foregone birth control, but you cannot infer that from the statistics. That's coming from your own dark and smelly.

[sgtbaker]

Truethat, you also seem to be equating not getting pregnant and abortion rates. It's weird that you would do that but it's factually inaccurate. According to the table on page 7 of this document http://www.guttmacher.org/pubs/USTPtrends.pdf, roughly 26% of teens pregnancies (between the ages of 15-19), where we can feel pretty safe in assuming that the majority of them are unintented, result in abortion. Your little 18% isn't accounting for the 14% of miscarriages and 58% of live births. We can compare the differences in availability of abortion to 15-19 year olds as opposed to women 25 and older but I don't think we really need to bring in the numbers for that. You know, more than half the states don't require women over 25 to get consent to have an abortion and all...

[catsmate1]

The reason I speak out so much about it, is that I am tired of women promoting this highly emotional ridiculous suggestion that it's rape victims, desperate teen agers, incest survivors at 10 that are having abortions.

If those opposing access to legal abortion insist on blanket restrictions those kinds of people will suffer.

A woman over 21 should not be getting pregnant unintentionally without any sort of forethought to the matter. There's simply no excuse.
And here's one of those absolutes.:rolleyes:
Absolutely ridiculous. Human beings, other than you obviously, are fallible. They make mistakes, birth control methods occasionally fail.
Not so occasionally for condoms and 'rhythm' methods.


Now:
Why not advocate mandatory sterilisation?That wasn't, as your strawman response implied, an appeal to emotion but rather a simple question, one I've asked other anti-abortion activists. Why not fit all teenagers with implantable birth control and/or implement reversible sterilisation? Damn few abortions then.........

Also I note you haven't answered this:
Abortion should be a safe legal medical procedure that should be available in situations where a woman's life is in danger, rape, teenage pregnancy etc. It should be used rarely.
I've asked this before in this thread and got no response: what level of danger to the women's life, in your opinion, justifies abortion?

[Bikewer]

As I realized must inevitably happen, this thread has descended into a rather acrimonious debate on the ethics of abortion.
That was not the original question nor the intent.

Rather, I would like to know if there is any input as to desired outcome of the pro-life movement.
The political pundits generally say that if Roe V. Wade were overturned, then it would simply go back to the states. Some states would allow abortion (likely with some restrictions), some would make it illegal.
This would, of course, disenfranchise poor women in "illegal" states, who could not afford travel to "legal" states.
Some state-level legislators have already proposed making such travel illegal in itself; that if you got preggers in a state where abortion was illegal, you couldn't travel to a legal one for the procedure. Seems flatly unconstitutional...

However, if we extrapolate further, what would be the result of an outright ban in the entire US?
Legislators have proposed prosecuting not only abortion providers but the women involved as well.... Essentially, they would be accessory to a homicide under some plans.
Prosecutors have generally been shy about such plans....

We can easily see a number of social consequences; a resurgence of "back alley" providers, illegal importation of various abortificants, an increase in sex methods unlikely to result in pregnancy....
Wealthy women deciding to travel to neighboring countries where we can easily see an increase in clinics designed to cater to this trade...

Most of the pro-life folks seem to be dead set against any sort of improved sex education; as I noted earlier there is the thought that the movement is as much anti-sex as it is anti-abortion.

People will have sex. It's one of the most basic human desires. People have sex with each other even in situations where the consequences are potentially deadly. Homosexuals in Pakistan and Iran, for instance. Adulterers in Afghanistan.
Young, juicy people will have risky sex due to either enthusiasm or ignorance. Young women will become pregnant with children that they do not want and have no means to care for.
Adoption can only absorb so many of these, and will only absorb a tiny percent of less-desirable infants. Those of mixed-ethnicity, suffering from birth defects or developmental problems...

[bookitty]

Noooo! I'm recovering from surgery and nursing a 1 month old, I need a good heated discussion to keep me occupied. Otherwise I' might get up from the computer and try to do things (which is why this recovery is taking so long in the first place)






ok fine, you're probably right....

Congratulations! On the new baby, not the surgery. :)

[bookitty]

I actually think that truethat is pro-choice; it's just that she feels the need to impose her choice(s) on everyone else by defining when it is and isn't appropriate to have an abortion. Hence her rather arbitrarily defined (and applied) definition of "responsibility", which of course would never apply to a woman in her situation.

Ah, the irony.

Oops, I forgot. Because I have a penis, I'm not allowed to comment on these issues or criticize truethat :rolleyes:

Of course not! Not allowing penis-havers to discuss the ramifications of human fertility will totally help keep the abortion rate down. :rolleyes:

[Complexity]

Oops, I forgot. Because I have a penis, I'm not allowed to comment on these issues or criticize truethat :rolleyes:


I know that the rules are many and may appear to be inconsistent.

Fortunately, as a penis-person, they have been simplified for you:

You are wrong.

(join the club)

[bookitty]

As I realized must inevitably happen, this thread has descended into a rather acrimonious debate on the ethics of abortion.
That was not the original question nor the intent.

Rather, I would like to know if there is any input as to desired outcome of the pro-life movement.
The political pundits generally say that if Roe V. Wade were overturned, then it would simply go back to the states. Some states would allow abortion (likely with some restrictions), some would make it illegal.
This would, of course, disenfranchise poor women in "illegal" states, who could not afford travel to "legal" states.
Some state-level legislators have already proposed making such travel illegal in itself; that if you got preggers in a state where abortion was illegal, you couldn't travel to a legal one for the procedure. Seems flatly unconstitutional...

However, if we extrapolate further, what would be the result of an outright ban in the entire US?
Legislators have proposed prosecuting not only abortion providers but the women involved as well.... Essentially, they would be accessory to a homicide under some plans.
Prosecutors have generally been shy about such plans....

We can easily see a number of social consequences; a resurgence of "back alley" providers, illegal importation of various abortificants, an increase in sex methods unlikely to result in pregnancy....
Wealthy women deciding to travel to neighboring countries where we can easily see an increase in clinics designed to cater to this trade...

Most of the pro-life folks seem to be dead set against any sort of improved sex education; as I noted earlier there is the thought that the movement is as much anti-sex as it is anti-abortion.

People will have sex. It's one of the most basic human desires. People have sex with each other even in situations where the consequences are potentially deadly. Homosexuals in Pakistan and Iran, for instance. Adulterers in Afghanistan.
Young, juicy people will have risky sex due to either enthusiasm or ignorance. Young women will become pregnant with children that they do not want and have no means to care for.
Adoption can only absorb so many of these, and will only absorb a tiny percent of less-desirable infants. Those of mixed-ethnicity, suffering from birth defects or developmental problems...

I had some pamphlets from the early 60's, mimeographed stapled booklets of "underground" feminist information. Several of them included information relating to abortion - signs that something is wrong, ways to tell your doctor that you had an abortion in Tijuana and now need help, natural and chemical abortifacents, numbers to call to get information. All written anonymously. It is chilling to read about how high a fever must be before a woman can get emergency help.

If abortion is outlawed, there will be a similar underground movement, except that now it will be internet based, instead of pamphlets ordered from the back of magazines or passed on by a sympathetic neighbor. There will be a lot of misinformation, some of it partially helpful, some benign and some dangerous.

Every country which has outlawed abortion still has abortion. Making it illegal will only make it more difficult, more dangerous and more expensive. The daughters of anti-choice senators will still be able to afford an understanding private doctor, those without means will not.

The anti-choice crowd understand this although some will hand-wave it away. The rest feel that a few dead women are better than millions of "dead babies." Unspoken is the underlying assumption that women deserve death if they seek abortion because abortion is "murder."

Of course, many anti-choicers don't care about the ramifications at all. They feel that abortion is bad and it needs to be illegal. Period. Whatever fallout happens after that is not their problem.

[myowninvention]

Unfortunately yes it is. This is what the statistics show. Why are you debating it?

Do you have information that proves otherwise?


We are looking at the same data. There is no face or reason behind the statistics- they do not say, ever, why someone was not using birth control. I say that calling it all irresponsibility is not valid- not only does it ignore any other reason why a woman might not use birth control, it also negates any attempts at solving other problems- like access to birth control, which might be a factor in a woman's choice not to use birth control. You are essentially saying, when you say this, that all we can do to reduce the number of unwanted pregnancies is educate, nothing else.


It tells me that overall half of the abortions being had, one way or the other are due to IRRESPONSIBILITY.

That's what it tells me. Unless you argue that women are idiots.

There's one reason that women have sex without protection. And only one.

They don't take personal responsibility for not getting pregnant. Slice it, dice it any way you want it, it's not rape victims, teen agers and preteen incest victims that are having the majority of abortions. It is irresponsible women.

I am not talking about these cases (which, not including teen pregnancy, a group I think worth talking about, make up about 2-3% of abortions), but of the millions of women each year having unintended pregnancies, who did not use birth control. You paint a very bleak picture where all a society can do for these women is tell them to use a condom or keep their legs closed.


What problem is there in "not having sex." Could you explain to me the problem associated with not having sex? You see how it's this perpetuation of the victim meme. What problem is going to happen if a woman abstains from sex?

Poor women are often sold the meme that they are not responsible for their lives. The government and society are. So they don't feel the personal responsibility for not getting pregnant. Many times in these cases they are children of mothers raised on welfare and so it's normal for them to get pregnant and go on welfare. It's a huge problem. Do a bit of research and you will find this is part of the problem. And it is exacerbated by the "Women are Victims" Choir that constantly repeats the refrain of "You aren't responsible for what you do....you're a victim.....you'll die if you don't have sex!!!"


The problem with not having sex is that it doesn't happen. We can fight for abstinence all we want, and it's not going to do jack. Telling women not to have sex if they can't afford birth control simply doesn't work. There is a lot of education that we can do, and that we should do, and it involves a lot more then just sex ed classes in high school. Want older women- that large group of women who have one or more child, are in a relationship, and are still getting abortions- to have less unintended pregnancies? Telling her "don't have sex" isn't going to change anything, the way that providing her with access to, say, a doctor does. Let's face it, condoms suck. If your only knowledge of birth control is the pill- which is not an option for many women- what they have in the pharmacy- i.e. condoms- and what you might remember from a high school sex ed class, are you really surprised that some women are opting for nothing? How many women out there know how to use, where to get, or can afford other options like an IUD, a diaphragm or surgery. These are options that are there and open to women with full access to medical care, but are simply not an option for others. This is why it's valid to look at the difference in abortion rates by income level.

You say woman who argues that she didn't use birth control because she was too poor is simply shifting responsibility to society? Great. Guess what, a large part of the civilized world believe that it is the responsibility of society to assist those in need, and those who are not able to afford things (like birth control) on their own do not deserve to be penalized for their circumstances. And guess what- it works! Providing easy access to birth control to people in poverty reduces the number of unintended pregnancies. Look at the difference in abortion rates between the US and countries with a more generous approach to public health.

Doing this is not saying "you're a victim" or "you'll die if you don't have sex", it is accepting the reality that people will and do have sex, and if we make it hard for them to do it safely, they will do it unsafely- no matter how many times we tell them not to.






Congratulations! On the new baby, not the surgery. :)

Thanks! My fourth (and last!) child- the surgery and the new baby are related...

[MattusMaximus]

Of course, many anti-choicers don't care about the ramifications at all. They feel that abortion is bad and it needs to be illegal. Period. Whatever fallout happens after that is not their problem.

This, but it's worse than that, I think. I think many of these folks actually believe that some kind of utopia will magically come into existence should they completely outlaw abortion. It is kind of like how the fanatical Prohibitionists were in complete denial that not only wasn't the prohibition against alcohol not working, it was actually causing far more problems than it ever solved.

And, of course, those same fanatics were the ones who argued that everyone caught with a single drop of booze should be thrown into jail. Just like the fanatical anti-choicers want to ban all abortion & birth control and drastically limit sex education, and anyone who breaks their laws should be subject to prosecution.

The United States simply won't go for it. These loons are their own worst enemy.

[truethat]

Students at Shippensburg University in Pennsylvania can get the "morning-after" pill by sliding $25 into a vending machine, an idea that has drawn the attention of federal regulators and raised questions about how accessible emergency contraception should be.
The student health center at Shippensburg, a secluded public institution of 8,300 students tucked between mountain ridges in the Cumberland Valley, provides the Plan B One Step emergency contraceptive in the vending machine along with condoms, decongestants and pregnancy tests.
"I think it's great that the school is giving us this option," junior Chelsea Wehking said Tuesday. "I've heard some kids say they'd be too embarrassed" to go into town — Shippensburg, permanent population about 6,000 — and buy Plan B.
Federal law makes the pill available without a prescription to anyone 17 or older, and the school checked records and found that all current students are that age or older, a spokesman said. It doesn't appear that any other vending machine in the U.S. dispenses the contraceptive, which can prevent pregnancy if taken soon after sexual intercourse.


http://news.yahoo.com/pa-vending-machine-dispenses-morning-pill-182838406.html



More of these please. myowninvention. I totally disagree with your assertion that it is society's job to help women not to get pregnant. I think this meme is why we have so much unwanted pregnancy. It's the personal responsibility of a woman to make sure she doesn't get pregnant. No one else's. Her body, her right right? Then suddenly it's everyone else's responsibility? That's pretty much what I pointed out ten pages ago.

[ponderingturtle]

This, but it's worse than that, I think. I think many of these folks actually believe that some kind of utopia will magically come into existence should they completely outlaw abortion. It is kind of like how the fanatical Prohibitionists were in complete denial that not only wasn't the prohibition against alcohol not working, it was actually causing far more problems than it ever solved.

And, of course, those same fanatics were the ones who argued that everyone caught with a single drop of booze should be thrown into jail. Just like the fanatical anti-choicers want to ban all abortion & birth control and drastically limit sex education, and anyone who breaks their laws should be subject to prosecution.

The United States simply won't go for it. These loons are their own worst enemy.

The thing here is you think they care about the impact on society. In their view the people hurt deserve what they get and more.

[sgtbaker]

http://news.yahoo.com/pa-vending-machine-dispenses-morning-pill-182838406.html



More of these please. myowninvention. I totally disagree with your assertion that it is society's job to help women not to get pregnant. I think this meme is why we have so much unwanted pregnancy. It's the personal responsibility of a woman to make sure she doesn't get pregnant. No one else's. Her body, her right right? Then suddenly it's everyone else's responsibility? That's pretty much what I pointed out ten pages ago.

I think you are misunderstanding her point. Pushing sex education is society taking part in prevention. Making condoms available, is society taking part in prevention. Government funding and donations to keep organizations like Planned Parenthood open and offering lower costs for women's health is society taking part in prevention. Forgive me if I am excluding some obscure middle ground but if you think education is necessary, than you think society does bear some responsibility.

You should be very proud that you made it without using assistance but not everyone is lucky enough to marry two responsible men; to use your words.

[bookitty]

This, but it's worse than that, I think. I think many of these folks actually believe that some kind of utopia will magically come into existence should they completely outlaw abortion. It is kind of like how the fanatical Prohibitionists were in complete denial that not only wasn't the prohibition against alcohol not working, it was actually causing far more problems than it ever solved.

And, of course, those same fanatics were the ones who argued that everyone caught with a single drop of booze should be thrown into jail. Just like the fanatical anti-choicers want to ban all abortion & birth control and drastically limit sex education, and anyone who breaks their laws should be subject to prosecution.

The United States simply won't go for it. These loons are their own worst enemy.

Extreme measures taken to address the symptoms of societal ills just aren't as effective as addressing the causes. The death penalty doesn't prevent murder. Prohibition didn't prevent alcoholism. Outlawing abortion doesn't affect rates of unwanted pregnancy.

Punitive solutions are not the answer but pushing for them allows people to neatly divide the world into "those animals" and "us good people." Societies which create laws with the understanding that all humans are both animals and good people show better social outcomes.

[Caper]

Punitive solutions are not the answer but pushing for them allows people to neatly divide the world into "those animals" and "us good people." Societies which create laws with the understanding that all humans are both animals and good people show better social outcomes.

I hope to gain rights for the unborn. I don't believe abortion should legal after 6 months and maybe not 5.

I only wish people like yourself could view a 7 month old fetus as such high esteem as "those animals".

[MattusMaximus]

The thing here is you think they care about the impact on society. In their view the people hurt deserve what they get and more.

True. The radical anti-choicers believe that, but the vast majority of the U.S. population doesn't, which is why if these fanatics got some power and even tried to implement a piece of their real agenda the American people would drop-kick their asses back to the Dark Ages.

Just recall the backlash against the Terri Schiavo fiasco in 2005, and you'll get some idea of what I'm getting at. These loons may win a battle here and there, but they're losing the war.

[MattusMaximus]

I hope to gain rights for the unborn. I don't believe abortion should legal after 6 months and maybe not 5.

I only wish people like yourself could view a 7 month old fetus as such high esteem as "those animals".

Sorry, but I tend to put the rights of actual people (adult women) ahead of the supposed rights of potential people (embryos and fetuses). We don't award medical licenses to potential doctors (medical students) until they have actually graduated from med school and passed all those pesky exams, you know.

You may disagree, but that's your choice. Just as it is (and should be) the pregnant woman's choice what to do with her body.

[Caper]

Sorry, but I tend to put the rights of actual people (adult women) ahead of the supposed rights of potential people (embryos and fetuses).

Well sorry. I tend to believe a 7 month old fetus is an actual person. Actually, I'm not sorry.

We don't award medical licenses to potential doctors (medical students) until they have actually graduated from med school and passed all those pesky exams, you know.

We don't kill them either.


You may disagree, but that's your choice.

Yes it is.

Just as it is (and should be) the pregnant woman's choice what to do with her body.


It's what they may want to do with anothers body I have a problem with. So we disagree.

[myowninvention]

I think you are misunderstanding her point. Pushing sex education is society taking part in prevention. Making condoms available, is society taking part in prevention. Government funding and donations to keep organizations like Planned Parenthood open and offering lower costs for women's health is society taking part in prevention. Forgive me if I am excluding some obscure middle ground but if you think education is necessary, than you think society does bear some responsibility.

You should be very proud that you made it without using assistance but not everyone is lucky enough to marry two responsible men; to use your words.

Exactly. Further, is not absolving a woman of all personal responsibility to acknowledge that circumstances make it harder for some then for others.

I hope to gain rights for the unborn. I don't believe abortion should legal after 6 months and maybe not 5.

I only wish people like yourself could view a 7 month old fetus as such high esteem as "those animals".

Thing is illegalization doesn't really do anything for reducing late term abortion. http://www.canadiansforchoice.ca/hottopic01.html.

Canada technically has no laws restricting late term abortion. Essentially every state in the US does. There is no major difference in the percent of abortions performed after 13 weeks.

One thing our policy here in Canada does is remove the incentive of certain extremists to delay a woman seeking an early elective abortion until it is to late.

[truethat]

What circumstances makes it harder for a woman not to have sex if she doesn't want an unwanted pregnancy???

As I said, you guys make it sound like we're talking about breathing here. It's sex. It's not absolutely necessary to have vaginal intercourse? This is what I mean about the "meme" that is being promoted that women are "victims"

Victims of what? Wanting to have sex? I got "lucky" and it's harder for other women to "not have sex." I didn't have sex for a year. It's not a very difficult thing to do believe it or not.

But no, women are just these poor things who will collapse into unwanted sex. Then you all have the nerve to compare this to rape victims?


It's utter nonsense. THERE IS NO EXCUSE. The only excuse for women is that they would be too naive or stupid to realize they shouldn't have sex. Like a teenaged girl.

And yet teenagers are a low percentage of abortions.

[dc1971]

I'm uncompromisingly anti-abortion. What's my end game? To put society in a position where the rights of the unborn are recognized...

What responsibility does an unborn child have to you?

[SezMe]

I didn't have sex for a year. It's not a very difficult thing to do believe it or not.
So you did something that was not difficult for you therefore it is not difficult for every woman. Sure, that's perfectly logical. :rolleyes:

I find it quite easy to pee up the side of a tree. You?

[Flo]

Another version of "I got mine, ****** the rest" .....

[catsmate1]

I hope to gain rights for the unborn. I don't believe abortion should legal after 6 months and maybe not 5.
So you're OK with induced abortion before 20-24 weeks? Why?

[sgtbaker]

What circumstances makes it harder for a woman not to have sex if she doesn't want an unwanted pregnancy???

As I said, you guys make it sound like we're talking about breathing here. It's sex. It's not absolutely necessary to have vaginal intercourse? This is what I mean about the "meme" that is being promoted that women are "victims"

Victims of what? Wanting to have sex? I got "lucky" and it's harder for other women to "not have sex." I didn't have sex for a year. It's not a very difficult thing to do believe it or not.

But no, women are just these poor things who will collapse into unwanted sex. Then you all have the nerve to compare this to rape victims?


It's utter nonsense. THERE IS NO EXCUSE. The only excuse for women is that they would be too naive or stupid to realize they shouldn't have sex. Like a teenaged girl.

And yet teenagers are a low percentage of abortions.

I really don't understand. Do you want to walk away from this and feel like you've improved your knowledge or do you just need to feel like you are right? If you were actually interested in a discussion/debate, you would start taking into account the counters that people offer instead of just reasserting the same lines as if the second and third time you say them, they will magically mean more than what they did the last time you said it.

I have already shown you that there are less sexually active teens then there are sexually active adults. Basic mathematics will show a higher amount of unwanted pregnancies in the group with the highest sexually active participants. If the meaning behind those numbers meant more than "proving everyone else wrong," one would think you would actually consider a point like that as relevant.

If you want to use yourself as the example of what women ought to be doing, you have to be honest. If you have to hide details of that to make your point, you don't have one. It's as simple as that. Grant it, we will never know the full story (and most of us rational people probably don't care because one anectdote of one individual does not set the bar) of your life so we will never know what details you are conveniently leaving out, however, you know in your head what's true and what's not. You've recently changed you example of two years of abstaining and "knowing your cycle" (whatever that has to do with abstaining is lost on me), to one year of zero sex. Does that mean the second year you used your calendar method or does that mean two years of abstaining and just letting us know that you know your cycle for absolutely no reason? You've let us know that you were a young mother. Did you get pregnant in your teens? Is that why teens get a free pass? I am really curious what the magic crossing over moment is between 19 and 20 where a girl suddenly realizes that her period actually means that she is fertile and that's not some lie that her mother told her.

[truethat]

I know I'm repeating myself. But it's for a reason. There is no "right or wrong" in this discussion. From my perspective and discussion with myowninvention we were discussing harmful meme's to women in society. The alleged harmful meme is that women are sluts if they get pregnant. I don't think that is nearly as harmful as the meme that suggests that women do not have almost total control of their bodies and the ability not to get pregnant.

This is why pro abortion people will discuss rape victims, children of incest etc, busted or broken birth control. As if these are the issues that come up for abortion and unwanted pregnancy.

This is not the majority of unwanted pregnancy. Unwanted pregnancy mostly comes from not using birth control properly and not being proactive about not getting pregnant. There are no circumstances that I can think of outside of rape, that would make it impossible for a woman to abstain from vaginal intercourse during the times when she is most likely to get pregnant.

So I'm pushing this because I think people don't realize how much they perpetuate that women are victims of getting pregnant. As if they have no control. This is why I ask what circumstances would make it more difficult for a woman to abstain from sex during that time? Aside from rape, there isn't any circumstance that would make it difficult. Actually one other would be if she was a prostitute and needed the money.

Otherwise there is simply no excuse except the continued perpetuation of the idea that woman are victims of having sex. It makes no sense. If people would like to share examples of why a woman would find herself in a situation where she can't say no to sex I'd like to hear it.

The womens movement talks of "No means No" ownership and autonomy of her body when it comes to empowerment. But for some reason that "empowerment" seems to come to a screetching halt when the person being told "No" is herself. Then all of a sudden there are "extenuating circumstances" that are purported to make it "harder for her" not to have sex.

So I'd like to hear what they are.


As for my "calendar method" and abstaining from sex it's simple.


If you know during your cycle that there are certain days during which you are very likely to get pregnant if the condom breaks, then during that week don't have vaginal intercourse. That doesn't mean you can't enjoy yourself having sex. But just no vaginal intercourse.

During the rest of the month always use a condom every single time.

This is an effective form of birth control. Combined with the pill, it's a wonderful form of birth control.

Yet you can still get pregnant. Now I know for some women the idea of having an abortion is not that big of a deal. So they will obviously do their best and yet it might not work and so then they have to have an abortion.

However a large number of women report they were not using any form of birth control at all when they got pregnant. And even if a percentage of these women got pregnant and had to have an abortion for medical reasons, it still shows that a large number of women are not being proactive about not getting pregnant.

(See how someone tried to suggest that "some of the women wanted the baby and had to have an abortion" it's always this new excuse to ignore the reality)

For me personally because I didn't want an unwanted pregnancy or an abortion I didn't have sex for a year. This was because I knew it was the only 100% sure way of not getting pregnant.

And no I didn't get pregnant in my teens. I didn't have sex in my teens either. I got pregnant after I got married. In each pregnancy during my marriage I had not planned the pregnancy. But we didn't care if we got pregnant. So I had two unplanned but not unwanted pregnancies. After I got divorced I did not want to risk getting pregnant so I did not have sex. Once I was in a committed relationship I started having sex again and very clearly pointed out to my partner that if I got pregnant I would not have an abortion and I would raise the child myself if it came to it. I do not consider myself half my children's parents. I consider them 100 percent my responsibility and have raised them this way. My oldest is now 18.


I grew up in a "white trash town" and watched a lot of teens get pregnant. I always was extraordinarily careful and aware of the problems of getting pregnant.

[sgtbaker]

I know I'm repeating myself. But it's for a reason. There is no "right or wrong" in this discussion. From my perspective and discussion with myowninvention we were discussing harmful meme's to women in society. The alleged harmful meme is that women are sluts if they get pregnant. I don't think that is nearly as harmful as the meme that suggests that women do not have almost total control of their bodies and the ability not to get pregnant.


That's where your strawman is, though. You are not addressing what people are actually saying. You need to go back and show me where anyone said the poor victim had no control of her body. You are the only one that is using that term. I've seen everyone say, something to the effect of, in the real world, people are going to have sex, even when it might not be a good idea. The point is, they shouldn't be forced to carry out a pregnancy because your view is it's murder. You respond to that by saying she has control over her body and she is not a victim. I do not have anyone on ignore so I am fairly confident that there aren't posts that I can't see so, I all can conclude is that you are not reading or responding to what people are actually saying.

This is why pro abortion people will discuss rape victims, children of incest etc, busted or broken birth control. As if these are the issues that come up for abortion and unwanted pregnancy.

This is not the majority of unwanted pregnancy. Unwanted pregnancy mostly comes from not using birth control properly and not being proactive about not getting pregnant. There are no circumstances that I can think of outside of rape, that would make it impossible for a woman to abstain from vaginal intercourse during the times when she is most likely to get pregnant.

Fact, the majority of abortions are from not using birth control. That is all you know about it. Anything after that is you using your imagination in the absence of information.

So I'm pushing this because I think people don't realize how much they perpetuate that women are victims of getting pregnant. As if they have no control. This is why I ask what circumstances would make it more difficult for a woman to abstain from sex during that time? Aside from rape, there isn't any circumstance that would make it difficult. Actually one other would be if she was a prostitute and needed the money.

I don't believe in divorce. I believe it is a vow and people shouldn't break vows. Therefor, anyone who is divorced is a liar. They make irresponsible promises that they have no intention of keeping. Furthermore, more women initiate divorces than men do. This proves that it's mostly women that are liars make promises that they have no intention of keeping.

Otherwise there is simply no excuse except the continued perpetuation of the idea that woman are victims of having sex. It makes no sense. If people would like to share examples of why a woman would find herself in a situation where she can't say no to sex I'd like to hear it.The womens movement talks of "No means No" ownership and autonomy of her body when it comes to empowerment. But for some reason that "empowerment" seems to come to a screetching halt when the person being told "No" is herself. Then all of a sudden there are "extenuating circumstances" that are purported to make it "harder for her" not to have sex.


When you are willing to answer the more personal questions, since you are so willing to use yourself as the prime example of responsibility, I will answer this.

[Caper]

So you're OK with induced abortion before 20-24 weeks? Why?

Personally, I would not be that ok with it. It does bother me. But it is hard for me to make a legal case against it. For me, somewhere around that time, the living being feels it when it gets ripped apart. That's a deal breaker for me. They move around at that time (somewhere around that time) and though I don't know, I suspect they could and would move from pain. If you were to place something sharp against them, I am almost certain they would DECIDE to move away from it. That is what they would choose. Which is why I really deplore the term anti choice.

[Caper]

Exactly. Further, is not absolving a woman of all personal responsibility to acknowledge that circumstances make it harder for some then for others.



Thing is illegalization doesn't really do anything for reducing late term abortion. http://www.canadiansforchoice.ca/hottopic01.html.

Canada technically has no laws restricting late term abortion. Essentially every state in the US does. There is no major difference in the percent of abortions performed after 13 weeks.

One thing our policy here in Canada does is remove the incentive of certain extremists to delay a woman seeking an early elective abortion until it is to late.

It's partly a matter of principal. To me and to almost anyone really a nine month old fetus is human and Canada is very cowardly IMO to not define it as such.

[truethat]

Ok I'm a liar. It seems like people want to make this discussion about 'judging woman" who get pregnant. I'm not.

I'm pointing out that we need to change the approach to throwing 100 percent responsibility on the shoulders of women to always use birth control and ways they can push their advantage of not getting pregnant. So using short term abstinence as well.

I have also stated many times that abortion should be legal and rare. I've also pointed out that I would not judge a woman who had an abortion.

What I am pointing out is that women who promote the idea that "people are going to have careless sex" and "it's hard for a woman to take responsibility" and "rape victims are the ones having abortions" and "you have to understand that some women are just lucky" etc etc etc.


You are promoting a lie. Yes these might be overall statistics. But there is no reason a woman cannot practice safer sex and using birth control. By promoting these other ideas you perpetuate that a woman is a victim and has no power over the choices she makes with her body. Oh wait except if she wants to have an abortion. Then it's "her body her right."



I edited the last post to address the personal questions btw. Also I never said I was the prime example of responsibility. This is what I mean about the emotion vs logic thread. I haven't said anything of the sort. I've repeated myself over and over again because people read what I wrote and then go on and add crap in there I never said. Even when I clarify it over and over and over again.

[sgtbaker]

I was very careful about not calling you a liar. You area taking this personal. You have failed to answer, for the forth time, what knowing your cycle has to do with preventing pregnancy when you can't afford birth control for two years (it was originally two years).

[truethat]

Please show me the two years. Because I've said a few things and you are mixing them up. And I'm not sure about you calling me a liar, the point I was making is that I don't care if you are calling me a liar. I am not taking your opinion about divorce personally. It's your opinion. Shrug.


Who can't afford birth control for two years? I mean what kind of desperate third world crap are you trying to pull here. I tell you what. Why don't you cross reference the number of people who have cars or cell phones with the number of people who have abortions and then get back to me about those people who "can't afford birth control" for two years. This is exactly the kind of baloney I'm talking about in this thread and in this discussion. You guys just make up worse case scenarios that are so far removed from reality that's it is laughable.



http://www.nyc.gov/html/doh/html/condoms/condoms-where.shtml

[sgtbaker]

Post # 428 "How did I not get pregnant in two years of not really being able to afford condoms all the time? I used other forms of sexual activity. I ALSO KNEW MY CYCLE VERY WELL. Young girls should be taught about using their ovulation cycle to help avoid getting pregnant."

My bold. Using your cycle to help avoid getting pregnant doesn't matter when you are abstaining. As soon as you were called on it you changed it to,, "I well I meant using your cycle along with other methods but you used the example when you were talking about the two (not one) years you could barely afford birth control.

[truethat]

Post # 428 "How did I not get pregnant in two years of not really being able to afford condoms all the time? I used other forms of sexual activity. I ALSO KNEW MY CYCLE VERY WELL. Young girls should be taught about using their ovulation cycle to help avoid getting pregnant."

My bold. Using your cycle to help avoid getting pregnant doesn't matter when you are abstaining. As soon as you were called on it you changed it to,, "I well I meant using your cycle along with other methods but you used the example when you were talking about the two (not one) years you could barely afford birth control.



Oh I don't think you are understanding what I meant. But I'll take the blame for that. Most people seem to think I was suggesting the rhythm method in a way that is the opposite of what I suggested.

IOW having sex when you are least likely to get pregnant with no birth control.

I was suggesting NOT having sex at all during the time period of you knowing you are really likely to get pregnant.

Also you are confusing time periods. I didn't abstain from sex for one year because I couldn't afford birth control. I could. I just didn't want to get pregnant. I abstained prior to being with my now husband and in the beginning of our relationship. (Also I don't really consider it abstaining if no one is there to have sex with, however I never had casual sex Some women like to push the idea that having casual sex is a defining "female power and right)


There is a difference between not wanting to get pregnant and being broke.

As I said, you are mixing up two different times. The two year time period was using birth control and abstinence and also not minding if I got pregnant.


I still practiced birth control, I still use birth control even now after being together for 11 years. My worry now about getting pregnant has more to do with the health of the child and not being able to carry the child to term.


However I would not have had an abortion nor would the child have been unwanted if I would have gotten pregnant during the time period that we were broke. It would have been rough but I would have been able to handle it.

If I didn't think so I would have abstained even more than I did at the time.


Now that I have answered your ridiculously personal questions, could you please show me who exactly you are talking about who can't afford free birth control?

[Lithrael]

I abstained for a year once because I couldn't afford birth control and don't really trust condoms. If you don't have reasonable insurance the stuff does cost money. I've probably spent around 4k on birth control so far. It's not an astounding amount of money but it's hardly peanuts to someone on a tight budget.

I'm 100 billion percent pro-choice though. I'm extra careful because I'm straight up terrified of ever getting pregnant. I pretty much demand the ability to live my life as a sexual being without ever, should something go wrong, being forced to bear a child. And I feel very strongly that no woman should ever be forced to bear a child. I don't particularly approve of the few women that use abortion as birth control, but in no way do they change my mind about how absolutely imperative it is that all women should have reasonable access to abortion. In fact my strongest objection to such women is that they give ammunition to the pro-life crowd and influence fence sitters that aren't as thoroughly unimpressed with embryos as I am.

I don't find Truethat's position realistic because it implies that someone like me should essentially never, ever have vaginal intercourse. Well, balls to that.