Jump to content
Bear

Abortion

Recommended Posts

What drug are you asking about? The birth control pill?

 

As far as I'm aware, there is no minimum age requirement to take it. I'm in my 40s now, and I started it when I was sixteen, and my sister was about fourteen. Someone I knew was put on it at thirteen to regulate her menstrual cycle. As far as I (and my doctor) are aware, there have been no ill effects from having taken it for so long, either.

Oh no, I was talking about that shot they were talking about before. The one where the man takes and it makes the sperm tailess so they can't swim. I'm wondering if that's age restricted because it might prevent teenage pregnancies and abortions :o Since it lasts for ten years apparently.

Share this post


Link to post
Oh no, I was talking about that shot they were talking about before. The one where the man takes and it makes the sperm tailess so they can't swim. I'm wondering if that's age restricted because it might prevent teenage pregnancies and abortions ohmy.gif Since it lasts for ten years apparently.

I don't see why it would be age restricted?

Share this post


Link to post
Oh no, I was talking about that shot they were talking about before. The one where the man takes and it makes the sperm tailess so they can't swim. I'm wondering if that's age restricted because it might prevent teenage pregnancies and abortions ohmy.gif Since it lasts for ten years apparently.

I would see why they might push for it to be age restricted (because "amg teh babies") but since it is easily reversible, I don't think there would be too much of an issue such as there are with vasectomies.

Share this post


Link to post
What drug are you asking about? The birth control pill?

 

As far as I'm aware, there is no minimum age requirement to take it. I'm in my 40s now, and I started it when I was sixteen, and my sister was about fourteen. Someone I knew was put on it at thirteen to regulate her menstrual cycle. As far as I (and my doctor) are aware, there have been no ill effects from having taken it for so long, either.

Actually and not to derail the thread, if you have the gene for otosclerosis, the pill - for any length of time - can have adverse effects. I am - sadly - living proof. Pregnancy is a known trigger to kick it off, and hormonally the pill does simulate pregnancy. This I learned from my OB/GYN - too late. But he did tell me to tell my daughters to alert anyone who ever prescribes the pill for them.

 

*tiptoes out after delivering this bombshell*

Share this post


Link to post
Actually and not to derail the thread, if you have the gene for otosclerosis, the pill - for any length of time - can have adverse effects. I am - sadly - living proof. Pregnancy is a known trigger to kick it off, and hormonally the pill does simulate pregnancy. This I learned from my OB/GYN - too late. But he did tell me to tell my daughters to alert anyone who ever prescribes the pill for them.

 

*tiptoes out after delivering this bombshell*

Huh, learn something new every day.

 

However, I still believe that for someone without a genetic predisposition to otosclerosis (or risk factors for other potential complications), the pill is a perfectly viable long-term birth control method.

Share this post


Link to post
Huh, learn something new every day.

 

However, I still believe that for someone without a genetic predisposition to otosclerosis (or risk factors for other potential complications), the pill is a perfectly viable long-term birth control method.

Oh absolutely. It's just that people KEEP saying there are no ill effects, and that isn't quite true.

 

Just as ASA is wonderful.

 

Unless you happen to be allergic to it - as I am....

Share this post


Link to post

Yes, then you get to go for the more expensive ones.

 

The other is that for some people, BC can cause blod clots. This happened to my cousin. It nearly killed her by causing clots in the legs. She can't take the cheap kind.

 

Speaking of sexism inherent in the whole debate though, Christian school fired a teacher who got pregnant from premarital sex, then tried to hire her fiance... http://lifeinc.today.com/_news/2013/02/28/...arital-sex?lite

Share this post


Link to post
Speaking of sexism inherent in the whole debate though, Christian school fired a teacher who got pregnant from premarital sex, then tried to hire her fiance... http://lifeinc.today.com/_news/2013/02/28/...arital-sex?lite

The trying to hire her fiancee is hypocritical, yes. Especially as she was dismissed for a breach in the pre-marital sex rules (which he, clearly, also had to be in breach of). That said I would stand by the right of a religious school to impose and enforce such rules, in harmony with their religious principles, provided they are not publicly funded. I would not consider such rules to be sexist in and of themselves, provided they were being fairly enforced. It's also not really sexist to point out that it's rather more obvious if a woman has been having premarital sex if she has become pregnant by it. A lot of it could be kept from the attention of the school (and thus the children) but it's a little hard to hide that you're pregnant. Not sexism, biology.

Share this post


Link to post

Biology has nothing to do with having a rule that is enforced differently for both sexes as in this case, they KNOW he is guilty of the exact same thing. But, chose to treat him differently. That's pretty standard sexism to me. Two genders, same rule, one gets punished and one does not.

 

The Texas GOP btw, has decided to try to prohibit any school from using materials from Planned Parenthood because it's all a ploy by Planned Parenthood to lure kids into their clutches. Source

Texans who back Paxton’s measure argue that Planned Parenthood can’t be trusted to provide sex ed because, since the organization doesn’t want to “lose abortion business,” it has a vested interest in convincing teenagers to have sex and get pregnant:

 

We also have another GOP official claiming that rapes don't lead to pregnancy, and this one is female. Maybe this is how they justify their platform of disallowing abortions for incest and rape victims. Source

Greig then added: "Granted, the percentage of pregnancies due to rape is small because it's an act of violence, because the body is traumatized. I don't know what percentage of pregnancies are due to the violence of rape. Because of the trauma the body goes through, I don't know what percentage of pregnancy results from the act."

Share this post


Link to post

...Uh. 'K, then, Texas. You guys just keep living in that fantasy world, then.

 

I'm pretty sure that if I banged my head against my desk any harder, I'd give myself a concussion. I can't even really muster outrage anymore, just frustration at the endless barrage of stupidity.

Share this post


Link to post

What disturbs me most, though, is the way they say it--like forcible, violent rape is the only way that rape happens.

 

There's so many other ways rape happens. What if you're drugged? That doesn't have to be violent and cause trauma to the body.

 

IIRC, it's also considered rape in some places if somebody lies to you to get you to have sex with them. Can't remember if that's true, though.

 

Or you could have sex with them "willingly" because if you don't go along with it, then they'll hurt or kill you--it's still rape because you didn't want it, but you weren't physically assaulted in the process.

Share this post


Link to post
I'm pretty sure that if I banged my head against my desk any harder, I'd give myself a concussion. I can't even really muster outrage anymore, just frustration at the endless barrage of stupidity.

I can't even be frustrated, it's too stupid to be mad at. All I could manage was a giggle.

Share this post


Link to post
What disturbs me most, though, is the way they say it--like forcible, violent rape is the only way that rape happens.

 

There's so many other ways rape happens. What if you're drugged? That doesn't have to be violent and cause trauma to the body.

 

IIRC, it's also considered rape in some places if somebody lies to you to get you to have sex with them. Can't remember if that's true, though.

 

Or you could have sex with them "willingly" because if you don't go along with it, then they'll hurt or kill you--it's still rape because you didn't want it, but you weren't physically assaulted in the process.

I always thought that any sex where at least one person doesn't give their consent to be rape. Lying also counts (according to this site http://www.pandys.org/whatisrape.html it does).

Share this post


Link to post

Sex has to be a consensual act. For the act to be consensual, both parties must have capacity to consent. To have capacity, one has to be able to:

 

i) Understand the information being given to them,

ii) Be able to retain that information long enough to make a decision,

iii) Make a decision based on the information presented to them,

iv) Be able to communicate that decision.

 

For consent to be valid, the person must be fully-informed and their consent must be freely given without coercion. Even if that decision is considered to be 'unwise' by another person, so long as that person has capacity and given consent, then that consent is valid. Also, consent can be taken away at a later date - once consent is given, it is not binding.

 

So if either party does not fulfill all of the above critera, it is not sex. It is rape.

Share this post


Link to post

what if it's like a horse where the consent is implicit in that you're not dead yet

Share this post


Link to post
what if it's like a horse where the consent is implicit in that you're not dead yet

Actually, we had some ugly incidents in Denmark a few years back. This guy raped and cut (with a knife) several horses.

 

You can tie them up in confined spaces.

Share this post


Link to post
what if it's like a horse where the consent is implicit in that you're not dead yet

Can the horse understand, use, retain the information, and then communicate it's decision? No. Ergo it is not consensual.

Share this post


Link to post
Can the horse understand, use, retain the information, and then communicate it's decision? No. Ergo it is not consensual.

Hmmm, I'd say in the case of a male horse actively choosing to mount something that consent can be implied there (note: not that I actually condone bestiality, but on a logical argument with that one...).

Share this post


Link to post

Hmmm, I'd say in the case of a male horse actively choosing to mount something that consent can be implied there (note: not that I actually condone bestiality, but on a logical argument with that one...).

The horse believes it will reproduce and supply another horse. But it won't, because it doesn't understand inter-species mating. Ergo it does not understand the situation and does not have capacity. And what's to say the female agrees to the action?

 

And more importantly, inter-species sexual liaisons is a moral dilemma on more than one level, so the horse's capacity to consent is not the only issue.

Edited by Kestra15

Share this post


Link to post

The horse believes it will reproduce and supply another horse. But it won't, because it doesn't understand inter-species mating. Ergo it does not understand the situation and does not have capacity. And what's to say the female agrees to the action?

 

And more importantly, inter-species sexual liaisons is a moral dilemma on more than one level, so the horse's capacity to consent is not the only issue.

No, it's not the only issue (and, as I've said, I don't condone bestiality).

 

That said... animals are observed having sex for pleasure. The argument that 'the animal thinks it is reproducing, it isn't, ergo non-consensual' therefore can't apply. The (note - male here) animal is having sex because it enjoys the sensations. If it is choosing to mate with *any* species because it is enjoying the sensation, then that animal could be said to be consenting.

 

A somewhat better argument would be to say that the animal does not, infact, understand that the act it is engaging in is 'intended' for reproduction because an animal has an extremely limited ability to reason. The instinct may be there because reproduction is required - but for the male animal sex is a pleasureable experience that is an end goal in and of itself. The lack of reasoning capability is the key here, not it's understanding of the act.

 

Although here we raise a point that is actually quite interesting. Because certain forms of learning disabilities produce humans that are capable of understanding that an act is pleasureable and enjoyable, without being able to comprehend that the act itself results in reproduction (much like the horse, which is what led to this thought). Should we consider such a human to be totally unable to give consent because they do not comprehend that sex can lead to pregnancy? If yes - is it really fair to deny that person a sexual relationship that they may desperately want because of their limited mental capacity?

 

Edit to add: Human-animal sex aside, it's also been noted that animals will have sex with animal species other than their own. And while this occasionally does produce offspring, there are also times when it doesn't. Presumeably than animals are capable of consenting to sex with each other, despite the species being different, so one wonders if the *only* reason the 'consent' argument goes on with animal-human is because we have the facility for deductive reasoning.

Edited by TikindiDragon

Share this post


Link to post

I am, and have been for years, on the fence about the morality of abortion. My views on it change quite a bit based on the situation of the mother and the circumstances of the conception. Personally, if anything ever happened to cause myself to conceive a child, I would strongly consider abortion simply because I carry genetic markers for more than one serious disorder that could potentially cause a child's life to be a living hell. My mother passed on most of them to me before she knew that she was even a carrier, and later discovered that she is not only a carrier, but suffers from at least two of the disorders.

 

In cases where the child would be healthy and a home can be found for it I do believe that abortion is unnecessary, but in cases where the child would have little to no quality of life due to disease or the lack of a stable home I think that it is kinder to not allow it to exist. Fetuses early in development do not have an advanced enough neurological system to feel pain or to be aware of their own existence, so it is kinder to never put it in a situation where it will know pain.

Share this post


Link to post
In cases where the child would be healthy and a home can be found for it I do believe that abortion is unnecessary

Just curious, but what about if the fetus was healthy but the person carrying it wasn't/would become unhealthy from pregnancy? This includes mental health, too.

Share this post


Link to post
Can the horse understand, use, retain the information, and then communicate it's decision? No. Ergo it is not consensual.

feels bad, do not want -> kick

Share this post


Link to post
Actually, we had some ugly incidents in Denmark a few years back. This guy raped and cut (with a knife) several horses.

 

You can tie them up in confined spaces.

@ Kai: I'll just leave this here, since you must have missed it earlier.

Share this post


Link to post

Well obviously tying humans up is rape as well. That doesn't mean it's not possible to have consensual sex with a human.

Edited by Kai

Share this post


Link to post

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.