Abortion

[Sorrowgrave]

men slept with the women that get pregnant.

 

IF he's willing to pay her for ever second she's going threw in a unwanted unplanned pregnancy, pay her medical bills and her health and if the mother is okay with having the baby and giving it up to the father and doesn't change her mind after having it then yeah I guess a father could have a say.

 

but only in that what if.

 

As for this new congress guy.

 

 

 

[prairiecrow]

Personally I think any woman who has an abortion just because she doesn't want the child when it was her own damn fault she got pregnant in the first place needs to be sterilized, but perhaps that's just me being overly harsh. Abstinence is the only surefire way to avoid pregnancy, so it should be practiced when no child is desired.

I see. And I suppose that in your opinion, men who have premarital sex should also be tied down and sterilized?

 

You do realize that this is what you're suggesting, right? Imprisoning people and cutting up their reproductive organs because YOU think they should have kept their legs closed/kept it in their pants?

 

Let me repeat: Pregnancy is not a punishment. A baby is not a punishment. Or at least they shouldn't be, IMO. I'll ask a perfectly serious question here: what makes you want to suggest that they should be?

 

In addition, given that in human beings sex is NOT strictly for the purposes of reproduction (otherwise we'd only desire it when we were fertile), why should people who want to engage in it for the purposes of bonding, of stress release, for pleasure and so forth be denied the chance to do so safely and with a minimum of negative consequences?

Edited March 15, 2013 by prairiecrow

[keijaidyyn]

I see. And I suppose that in your opinion, men who have premarital sex should also be tied down and sterilized?

 

You do realize that this is what you're suggesting, right? Imprisoning people and cutting up their reproductive organs because YOU think they should have kept their legs closed/kept it in their pants? 

 

Let me repeat: Pregnancy is not a punishment. A baby is not a punishment. Or at least they shouldn't be, IMO. I'll ask a perfectly serious question here: what makes you want to suggest that they should be?

 

In addition, given that in human beings sex is NOT strictly for the purposes of reproduction (otherwise we'd only desire it when we were fertile), why should people who want to engage in it for the purposes of bonding, of stress release, for pleasure and so forth be denied the chance to do so safely and with a minimum of negative consequences?

I'm suggesting that humans in general really should learn to keep it in their pants, regardless of their marital status. I'm not saying this from a religious view. I don't really care if someone's married or not. I'm just sick of so many s running around spreading disease - those are the ones that typically don't have the sense to use proper protection anyway. Sex isn't something that should be given casually, especially when anyone with half a brain knows the possible result of it and then goes to have the result eliminated when it shouldn't have ever happened in the first place if they didn't want it.

[Slaskia]

How did I miss this post?

 

The main problem I have with abortion is that some women seem to use it as an excuse to be promiscuous

 

Actually, staticially, such women are the minority of those that get abortions (8% I believe was the number). The majority of those getting abortions are doing so due to BC failure/sabotuge (around 50% and above). Someone posted the stats on that not long ago.

 

Also...you shame the woman for wanting a sex life...but nothing on the man? It takes two to tango, ya know....

 

 

[keijaidyyn]

Actually, staticially, such women are the minority of those that get abortions (8% I believe was the number). The majority of those getting abortions are doing so due to BC failure/sabotuge (around 50% and above). Someone posted the stats on that not long ago.

 

Also...you shame the woman for wanting a sex life...but nothing on the man? It takes two to tango, ya know....

"Some" does not imply majority. I've already stated elsewhere in the thread that abortion is appropriate in some situations including health issues(both physical and mental) as well as cases where it is known that the child would have little quality of life due to genetic disorders.

 

Considering that the whole abortion debate is primarily about a woman having control of her own body, shouldn't she be the one responsible for her actions concerning her own body that would cause need for an abortion in the first place? Not sure how that doesn't make sense.

[Infinis]

In addition, given that in human beings sex is NOT strictly for the purposes of reproduction

 

Other animals also have been observed to have sex for reasons not reproduction as well so this isn't just a human thing. :3

 

Personally I think any woman who has an abortion just because she doesn't want the child when it was her own damn fault she got pregnant in the first place needs to be sterilized, but perhaps that's just me being overly harsh. Abstinence is the only surefire way to avoid pregnancy, so it should be practiced when no child is desired.

 

Then men should be forced to adhere to this exact same standard because double standards are uncool on all the levels.

 

And for the record, it is not ONLY the woman's fault. It takes two to tango: men are 50% responsible for conception. Which means it's 50% a man's fault. I'm getting really tired of hearing people say things like this, with the focus for responsibility and punishment being only on women while greatly or completely overlooking the male half of the issue.

 

Pregnancy and babies should NEVER be used as a punishment. Not EVER. Not only is it cruel for the mother, it's basically condemning the child/ren born to the mother to a life where they are not wanted, which does not always take only an emotional toll. Not all women grow to love and care about the fetus growing in them.

 

Abstinence is the only surefire way to prevent pregnancy but it's not going to happen. The urge to have sex is a natural drive. The best things you can do are the smart things: promote and support proper sexual education in which students are taught not just abstinence and omg stds, but about sex, its consequences (babies), how to protect oneself (both as contraception and disease prevention), and how hard it really is to give birth and raise a child (one of the most effective measures against pregnancy I've heard of is watching a video of a woman in labour and giving birth); and to promote widely available and low cost contraception.

 

Widely available (and/or low cost) contraception has been proven time and again to reduce abortion rates yet I don't see nearly as people supporting this as there should be. Illegalizing abortion only drives abortion and postop maternal death rates up, for a variety of reasons, including (but not only) infections and incorrectly performed procedures.

Edited March 15, 2013 by Infinis

[HollyTheColliegirl]

shouldn't she be the one responsible for her actions concerning her own body that would cause need for an abortion in the first place?

It takes two to reproduce.

 

Dang, 'd

Edited March 15, 2013 by HollyTheColliegirl

[Syaoransbear]

"Some" does not imply majority. I've already stated elsewhere in the thread that abortion is appropriate in some situations including health issues(both physical and mental) as well as cases where it is known that the child would have little quality of life due to genetic disorders.

 

Considering that the whole abortion debate is primarily about a woman having control of her own body, shouldn't she be the one responsible for her actions concerning her own body that would cause need for an abortion in the first place? Not sure how that doesn't make sense.

Having an abortion is being responsible. Choosing to have sex is exerting control over her body.

[hydrargyrum]

Having an abortion is being responsible.

This. This so much. Why is your idea of responsibility to bring a child into the world that the woman may not be able to properly provide for or would be unable to develop the appropriate connection with? Having a baby doesn't magically make a woman into a good mother-if she is, in your mind, irresponsible enough to get pregnant when she doesn't want to be, why would you trust her with a completely dependent human life?

 

Getting an abortion is admitting you (general you) made a mistake, and that you know you can't properly care for a baby. Having a child you know you can't care for is far more irresponsible.

[diannethegeek]

I want to add that it's not even just about being unable to care for a baby once it's born, but also not being able to properly care for it (and yourself) while it's growing. Women have to change the way they eat, the way thy sleep, work, change or stop medications, etc. while they're pregnant. I see far too many people advocate for adoption as if pregnancy was nothing more than a nine month waiting room.

[vintageandroid]

Sex isn't something that should be given casually

Why? If I'm a consenting adult, and my partner is a consenting adult, and we keep ourselves and each other safe, then what does it matter if it's casual or if it's based in Truest Love? It's not your job to decide what I can or cannot do with my body; it's mine.

[keijaidyyn]

I'm done with this thread. If you're going to discuss a woman's rights, then you need to discuss her responsibilities as well.

[Sorrowgrave]

I'm done with this thread. If you're going to discuss a woman's rights, then you need to discuss her responsibilities as well.

Good bye and good riddence.

 

 

totally shoulda seen that warn coming

Edited March 16, 2013 by Sorrowgrave

[catstaff]

I'm done with this thread. If you're going to discuss a woman's rights, then you need to discuss her responsibilities as well.

People have been discussing her responsibilities.

 

In general, women take responsibility for their own birth control. But birth control is NOT 100% effective, even with perfect use. No one in this thread is advocating abortion AS birth control. What most of us who remain pro-choice want is just that: the CHOICE. In case something goes terribly wrong with our birth control.

 

That's happened to me.

 

Back in 1999, my doctor switched what brand of BC pill I was on. I did not stop taking the pill. I was not on antibiotics that might interfere with its efficacy. The brand changed. And I got pregnant. As I was in a committed relationship, one in which my partner and I had already discussed possibly having a child together (although we weren't planning to try until '02 or so), I discussed options with him and we decided to continue the pregnancy.

 

But what if he was adamantly against having children? What if we hadn't been in a position to afford a child? As it is, we just barely scraped by financially through my pregnancy and our daughter's first year... too much income to get WIC or other assistance, but not really enough income to manage, either.

 

So what is more responsible, a woman aborting an unwanted accidental pregnancy when she cannot afford a pregnancy and a child, or having the baby and letting it grow up on welfare or in the foster care system and possibly even abused?

[KageSora]

I'm done with this thread. If you're going to discuss a woman's rights, then you need to discuss her responsibilities as well.

We are--abortion is taking responsibility. There are other ways to be responsible than to just never have sex.

 

And, again, if you're going to talk about abortion and responsibility, you have to talk about the man, too, otherwise it's just plain sexist.

[TikindiDragon]

I'm done with this thread. If you're going to discuss a woman's rights, then you need to discuss her responsibilities as well.

I don't know if you are still reading, but I think you should be made aware of how difficult it is to get oneself sterelised.

 

I have been asking now for 6 years, and the doctors still won't approve it.

 

I'm autistic. They have recently been looking to diagnose MS. And I'm trans, so the mere thought of pregnancy terrifies me to the core. I do not want my own biological children. Not now. Not ever. I'm quite aure about that. But they will not sterelise me - because I'm under 35, and I have no kids.

 

Now I take birth control pills. We're very careful, because I have personal religious reasons for being uncomfortable with abortion. Thankfully, so far, there have been no pregnancies. But if there were, I would have a serious dilemma on my hands. And biological child of mine would potentially inherit a genetic time-bomb, and the pregnancy would mentally destroy me in the process.

 

And yet, you are saying, the only options should be put myself and a child through that, or stop having sex with my partner of 10 years. Because I've tried asking to be sterelised - and it hasn't got me anywhere.

 

I *am* trying to be responsible. And I fail to see how it would be *irresponsible* to abort a child when those mental and genetic risks were in place. The only thing standing in my way currently is the medical profession that seems to think I can't know I don't want children.

[Slaskia]

Ugh...looks like those two ND bills I posted here before are going to be signed into law:

 

http://www.theblaze.com/stories/2013/03/15...day-for-babies/

[Vhale]

That's... really terrible. Some deformities are truly grotesque. The idea of forcing a woman who wanted a child, allllll the way through pregnancy just to give birth to a deformed baby that will die is horrific.

 

The original Southern Strategy that highlighted abortion as a winning political move came from Richard Nixon. They recently found some tapes that showed they had proof that Nixon sabotaged the Vietnam peace talks during his campaign so he could win the presidency. Basically, treason and a 5 year bloody war so he could win, by using Right to Life as one of his foundations. And the repercussions continue to this day. It astounds me that such a bloody pro-war party continues to delude itself that it is pro-life. Saving fetuses is not a green light to get millions of adults and kids killed.

[Spelunker]

Slaskia- look at one of the comments on the article.

...And abortion in case of rape? So you’re saying to take a horrible, shattering experience and make it worse by killing some innocent life. Good Idea.

 

Part of the reason it's such a shattering experience is because you might have to face 9 grueling months being reminded of what somebody did to you!

[Slaskia]

Slaskia- look at one of the comments on the article.

 

 

Part of the reason it's such a shattering experience is because you might have to face 9 grueling months being reminded of what somebody did to you!

Yeah, I saw that one. I keep telling myself not to look at the comments on TheBlaze, but it's like a trainwreck or NASCAR crash: you just can't stop looking....

[PointOfOrigin]

Yeah, I saw that one. I keep telling myself not to look at the comments on TheBlaze, but it's like a trainwreck or NASCAR crash: you just can't stop looking....

I'm just going through them, and some sick obsession doesn't allow me to stop. And it's not that they just talk about abortion and think of liberals as pro-abortion people. They even throw in conspiracy theories. And don't get me started on all god proclamations.

 

But the thing I find most disturbing is that they don't see the difference between pro-choice and pro-abortion (if there are people like that).

[Spelunker]

Agreed, Point. They just flame the people, and most put no thought into their comments. That saddens me, that flaming, brainless trolls take stances- because their horde is what fuels these arguments.

[kerrikins]

The thing I love about all these sorts of bills is that they're signed into law by the same sort of people who want to limit aid for those who are unemployed, who limit contraception...

 

Ugh.

[tenyasyugan]

Ugh, reading all this stuff makes me doubt humanity.

 

It's been a very long while [a few years?] since I last posted in this thread and my opinions have matured over time [whee, adulthood].

 

1. If a woman wishes to be sterilized, there should have already been programs in place to inform her of not just the surgery risks but how such a procedure could also be eventually reversed, much like some vasectomies. I know that some forms of tube-tying are permanent and others are less so, in some instances depending on the official doing it, and I feel that all of this should be explained so that a woman who, say, seriously wants to be sterile for the next ten years with near certainty of there being no accidental pregnancy, but also plans on having a kid later in life, should be aware of any reverse procedures and whether or not they're possible. My mother, sadly, had a botched tube-tying and the sheer amount of scar-tissue prevents her from getting it reversed and having a child as she would like with my step-father, which has stressed her out quite a bit as she really would like to have a family with him outside of him having adopted my sister and I.

 

2. Abortion, in the case of a single-parent, should be up to only that parent. I can't tell you how many stories I've heard and people I've seen who've had to go through the dilemma of having a horrible partner who wishes nothing to do with them but would force them to have a child because they feel entitled to it, even though they would not be supporting the carrying parent. The way the current system not only pushes a woman into having a child against her will but also shames her for it is disgusting.

 

3. Similar to sterilization, all risks and the use of abortion should be taught at an earlier point, perhaps even in schools to dispel all of this bunch of hooplah you hear in the halls these days. I've seen people who still believe in the coat-hanger thing. S'not how it works, seriously. I feel that much of the issue is in lack of education, so teaching about this procedure as well as what it entails could be very beneficial to our society, because without this knowledge it still appears as a culturally shameful and dark thing when, really, it's meant to be helpful for those who really can't care for or handle a child or pregnancy.

 

4. I promote the distinction between a fetus and a living human being. I know very well that my mother went through two miscarriages and an abortion before having me, and I know she debated on having a second abortion with me. I don't hate her for this, nor do I find it shameful. She had a very undependable husband, a poor financial situation, and a very unsupportive family. Although I'm proud of her for raising my sister and me pretty much on her own, I am sad that she is ashamed to admit to what she had to do as a young woman to try and keep her life together. I know through studying over the years that a fetus does not equal a baby. It has the chance of being a baby, but it also has the chance of becoming a cyst. Or a tumor. Or just being reabsorbed. Sure, you can argue that the cells are alive, but I don't feel that makes a whole living being. And, even then, until it exits the womb that mass of cells is the mother's mass of cells. Not anyone else's, and it surely isn't independent.

 

5. I fully believe that shaming or ridiculing a woman over abortion, sterilization, or the need for contraceptives is shameful in of itself. Those who feel they can dictate and judge another for what they do with their own body should have to experience such a thing themselves and not be exempted, as this is sadly exactly what is happening with all of these male law-makers making it exceedingly difficult for a woman to maintain control over her own being. For those who feel that abortion should be banned, imagine this scenario; A law has passed to prevent obesity in the populace at large. Your intake of food is now going to be regulated, and the government is going to control how much and what you eat for the rest of your life. That is the jist of preventing easily available contraceptives and abortion. Your life is now under the whim of someone else, and don't say that it's the same situation with the fetus, because it's already dependent on the mother and pretty much just a budding batch of cells made from her own cells with a tiny chromosome say from the male sperm.

 

6. In the case of a couple disagreeing over keeping a child, I feel that the partner carrying the child should have the heaviest weight in their decision. In this situation, I will make the hopeful assumption that both partners are well versed in the actual procedure of abortion and contraceptives. The reason I give the carrier the most weight is for the fact that if they feel that they can't handle a child, they can't handle a child. Why people believe that if you force someone to have a kid they'll do great with that kid is beyond me. While I agree the other partner does hold significance to the equation, they are not the one who will endure the physical trauma of pregnancy and delivery as well as the initial care of the infant. From my understanding, the United States is actually one of the only "developed" countries that does not have an official form of maternal leave. Comparatively, Canada has around 52 weeks of maternal leave that can be expended between both partners of the relationship, meaning the mother could have half of the leave and the other partner could have the other half.

 

7. In response the the ongoing laws against contraceptives and abortion, go read a book and talk to some actual women who haven't been shamed into a goddang corner thanks to you and get educated. EDUCATION is what is severely lacking. Education can lead to respect of a subject, respect for individuals who partake in a given subject, at the very least understanding of opposing views. Even if you view continues to differ from that of others, please try to at least read about their opinion so you don't come off as a pretentious butt. Sure, you're allowed to continue to disagree, but you're not allowed to be ignorant.

 

I'll add more of my thoughts as they come. For now, I think this is a suitable summary of my feelings.

[PointOfOrigin]

Ugh, reading all this stuff makes me doubt humanity.

 

It's been a very long while [a few years?] since I last posted in this thread and my opinions have matured over time [whee, adulthood].

 

1. If a woman wishes to be sterilized, there should have already been programs in place to inform her of not just the surgery risks but how such a procedure could also be eventually reversed, much like some vasectomies. I know that some forms of tube-tying are permanent and others are less so, in some instances depending on the official doing it, and I feel that all of this should be explained so that a woman who, say, seriously wants to be sterile for the next ten years with near certainty of there being no accidental pregnancy, but also plans on having a kid later in life, should be aware of any reverse procedures and whether or not they're possible. My mother, sadly, had a botched tube-tying and the sheer amount of scar-tissue prevents her from getting it reversed and having a child as she would like with my step-father, which has stressed her out quite a bit as she really would like to have a family with him outside of him having adopted my sister and I.

*Claps* This. All of this.

 

I'd also like to add that in my country and I think America, sterilization is illegal (bare exceptions) until you hit 35 years and have two kids. And I really don't understand why it isn't allowed sooner. Why should people who know that they'll never want to have children live in fear of getting pregnant?