Abortion

[Syaoransbear]

You guys think buying condoms is bad, try buying pregnancy tests when you are a teenager or a young adult. Lots of shaming there. I've been sexually active since I was 16, but I didn't get my period until I was 15, so I was extremely irregular. I was using protection but every time my period was late, and sometimes it was late by up to two months, I'd be making frequent trips to the pharmacy to get pregnancy tests because I was so freaked out. I fully understand how it happens that teenage girls don't realize they are pregnant until they are too far along to get an abortion.

 

And those pregnancy tests are wicked expensive too. $15 just for one, ridiculous.

Edited July 24, 2013 by Syaoransbear

[Fuzzbucket]

Well, to be fair, it's got about the same failure rate as condoms. Does nothing against STIs, but it certainly doesn't deserve to be blown off as a legitimate form of birth control.

ER - no. Condoms, properly used 98%.

 

Withdrawal somewhere around 94%, I believe, assuming that the couple ALWAYS do it EXACTLY right - more like 70% if not.

 

Source: Planned Parenthood - who also point out:.

Even if a man pulls out in time, pregnancy can still happen. Some experts believe that pre-ejaculate, or pre-cum, can pick up enough sperm left in the urethra from a previous ejaculation to cause pregnancy. If a man urinates between ejaculations before having sex again, it will help clear the urethra of sperm and may increase the effectiveness of withdrawal.   

 

Pregnancy is also possible if semen or pre-ejaculate is spilled on the vulva.

 

And my sister - a doctor - believes in the flying sperm... they are cunning little Bs....

 

[Goslander]

Ugh. This is why I never post anything. I tend to get more personal than I like and go back and delete stuff. Suffice to say, comprehensive sex ed is good, choice is good, bodily autonomy is a right that should never be ignored under any circumstances, and it's a damn shame that we're still having this debate in this day and age.

Edited July 24, 2013 by Goslander

[Goslander]

ER - no. Condoms, properly used 98%.

 

Withdrawal somewhere around 94%, I believe, assuming that the couple ALWAYS do it EXACTLY right - more like 70% if not.

 

Source: Planned Parenthood - who also point out:.

 

 

And my sister - a doctor - believes in the flying sperm... they are cunning little Bs....

My source is also Planned Parenthood. I'm back on the pull out method because of them. They were very informative as far as risks, advantages, options, and all that went, and I'm very grateful to them. It tears me up that people would take that resource away from women.

[Kelkelen]

It comes down to the shaming, IMO, especially here in the US. If the shaming would stop, fewer people would be uncomfortable buying condoms.

And, shame aside, it's just also something private/personal. People can still easily feel embarrassment if their purchase isn't handled professionally, even if they don't feel they are doing anything wrong. Here in Spain, for instance, I have a friend who went to buy condoms at the pharmacy -- and the two women who were waiting on her got all happy about it and told her "Congratulations!!" really loudly, and wanted to push more products at her than those she was actually buying. The attitude was genuine, but it still made the purchase so awkward that she didn't want to go back to that particular pharmacy. Imagine if she'd been in a small town where it was the *only* pharmacy!

 

I feel like store clerks of any sort ought to pass some basic test of "check out the purchases WITHOUT adding personal commentary." All the more so when they are ringing you up for something medical or sexual in nature.

[Kestra15]

Girls need to be taught that once most boys see that they've got a susceptible girl alone, most of the time he will say anything to get what he wants, and that if he can get away with not using protection, he won't use it.

If you could be a bit more prejudiced please?

[TCA]

^ Actually, I think this is a case where it's better to be too cynical when it's unnecessary than too naive when it is.

[Shienvien]

I think I am with Kestra on this, actually... These kinds of things go both ways and pointing fingers at one side only is not the way to go.

 

Lo and behold, I am a woman and possess a sex drive the same as any guy! l'm responsible with it. Some women are not. Same with men.

 

Or are we back to 18'th century and women having sex drives is a mental illness?

[TCA]

I don't trust either side to be responsible c: I'm cynical about the guys, but I'm cynical about the girls too. Nothing against people having sex drives, everything against people not... putting some level of thought into how to use them.

Edited July 24, 2013 by TheCompleteAnimorph

[hazeh]

It's too bad that it seems like the common practice is to teach girls to fear boys, when parents should be teaching all sexes of their children to be respectful of each other regardless of gender. And I agree, both parties are responsible for what they do with their own bodies. (Unless it is a victim of rape, in which case they didn't do anything with their body, so they should never be held responsible for what someone else does to them)

[hydrargyrum]

I think that consent is another important, and often ignored, part of sex ed. Teaching that all men only want to take advantage of girls is unacceptably sexist and also completely incorrect, but not teaching the possibility of someone taking advantage of their partner is dangerous. People need to know that sex is NOT a required part of a relationship, and if someone tries to pressure them into something they aren't comfortable with, then that person doesn't really care about them. Also that just because you agree to intercourse, doesn't mean you have to agree to EVERYTHING. Sleeping with someone once doesn't mean that you've given consent for future encounters, nor does it mean that you have to give consent if they try to insist on not using protection.

 

ETA: Wanted to add more emphasis to this bit: if someone tries to pressure their partner into something they aren't comfortable with, then that person doesn't really care about them.

I think this is a really important thing to teach in sex ed. I think there are too many people who think they have a responsibility to keep their partner happy, that their partner has some right to demand them to do things, or that maintaining the relationship is more important than their personal happiness, but they should know that no one ever has the right to make them do things they aren't comfortable with. Also that when someone says "you're making me uncomfortable" or "please stop", that, even if they've consented before, it's still rape if you don't stop.

Edited July 24, 2013 by hydrargyrum

[Obscure_Trash]

It is sad that it's necessary for us to teach women to fear men. If only we taught proper sex ed that stressed consent, communication, respect etc. other relationship stuff. There have been white house petitions to overhaul sex ed to be more comprehensive and include consent, but it didn't get enough signatures to be looked at, unfortunately.

 

No, that isn't say all men are rapists, but a lot are - and they don't even realize what they're doing is rape. http://www.washingtoncitypaper.com/blogs/s...theyre-rapists/ http://www.uic.edu/depts/owa/sa_rape_support.html

And they're basically never put away: http://25.media.tumblr.com/bfd57b8cb9569de...24agqo1_500.jpg

[KageSora]

If you could be a bit more prejudiced please?

We can stop the assumptions that males are sex-crazed animals capable of only acting on their need to have sex when society stops attempting to paint them with that brush.

 

It's a problem with sexism--it tries to excuse the actions of males, blame females when rapes and such happen, saying things like she brought it on herself by acting or dressing a certain way and that implication is that males are unable to control themselves and are slaves to their need to have sex.

 

If you want to stop that, you need to work on stopping sexism and rape culture. It hurts males by implying that they're little more than dicks with tiny brains, IMO. (which is clearly not accurate, but it's what society implies).

 

If I know that, even if I'm careful, that if something happens I am going to be the one that gets blamed and my state of dress or sobriety or where I was or who I chose to be with or if I was flirting etc. is going to be called into question just because I have boobs, then I think it's safer for me to assume that if it has a penis, it wants to get in my pants and to react accordingly.

 

If, however, each case were looked at without all of that bias against me for having boobs, if I weren't going to be possibly treated to death threats for daring to ruin the future of a poor male if the case were high profile enough... Well, then I wouldn't need to be suspicious.

 

 

I'd also feel less suspicious of those with penises if there were proper education about what rape IS. Here's a post with some links to studies where males admitted to being rapists--the key was to ask them what they'd done but not use the word rape. But it was rape all the same, because consent was not freely given by the victim.

 

The idea of consent isn't adequately addressed. The idea should be "no unless a certain yes is given freely by all parties involved", not "yes unless violent opposition and even then sometimes yes." :/

[Kelkelen]

I'd also feel less suspicious of those with penises if there were proper education about what rape IS. Here's a post with some links to studies where males admitted to being rapists--the key was to ask them what they'd done but not use the word rape. But it was rape all the same, because consent was not freely given by the victim.

 

The idea of consent isn't adequately addressed. The idea should be "no unless a certain yes is given freely by all parties involved", not "yes unless violent opposition and even then sometimes yes." :/

And even in that study, the questions specifically asked about "sexual intercourse." It didn't even attempt to cover other forms of sexual abuse/violation. I wonder what the results would have been, if the survey had asked not just about intercourse, but about kissing, undressing, fondling, masturbation, etc. while the other party didn't want to, but was too intoxicated to effectively resist advances. Or if the person physically struggled. (The recent events in Steubenville, Ohio, were particularly disturbing to me because while a girl was treated like a blow-up sex doll by a group of high school football players, who drugged her and then masturbated onto and against her inert body, penetrated her with fingers, groped her naked breasts, etc., to some people it wasn't "a real rape" or "as bad as a rape" because there wasn't a penis inside her at any point. Ummm...)

 

We *really* have to discuss consent better. As KageSora pointed out, it isn't adequately addressed. On top of needing to teach people that consent is necessary, we have to talk about what consent really IS -- I feel like over the past two decades, with all good intentions, society has accidentally created a "loophole" for sexual abuse by pushing the whole "no means no, the woman must say 'yes'" idea, to the point that some young men think "okay, then I have to get her to say yes, and then it's all good!" Maybe it's related to the U.S.'s litigious culture, but I think lots of people focus on the technical semantics rather than the underlying concept. Is a "yes" really consent if if it is coaxed, begged, guilted, or otherwise bullied out of the other party?

 

We have to teach our young men (and women, it's just much more common for young men to rape young women in a dating situation than vice versa) that consent is necessary -- AND that consent means really, truly wanting to. That "yes" should be certain, emphatic, and speak to a real desire. I wish more young women felt they have a *right* to not want sex even if they are seeing someone, and that more young men didn't *want* to have sex with a girl who wasn't interested, and wouldn't pursue it if she was clearly unhappy with the idea.

 

And, of course, that the same applies *forever* -- if anyone, man or woman, has had sex before and yet doesn't want to in the moment, you have to respect that! It's not suddenly okay to bully someone for sex just because you've done it before, or because they are your significant other! You can ask, sure, but if they're clearly just off the idea, you aren't allowed to claim any "right" to have sex because of your relationship status.

[philpot123]

And beliefs should have nothing to do with the law.

This is self-defeating. You support laws because you BELIEVE things "ought" to be a certain way. Some people support open access to abortion because they believe a fetus violates a woman's bodily autonomy. They BELIEVE that a woman has bodily autonomy and ought to be able to exercise that by clearing an unwanted human offspring out of her womb. Some people support open access to abortion because they BELIEVE people have a right to choose whether or not to terminate a pregnancy. Your beliefs have EVERYTHING to do with the sort of laws you support. You can't say that beliefs have nothing to do with laws, and then turn around and tell me you believe the law should recognize a woman's "right" to choose, because such a statement is based on your beliefs. What is the law based on if not beliefs in regards to rights, justice, etc?

[HeatherMarie]

ETA: Wanted to add more emphasis to this bit: if someone tries to pressure their partner into something they aren't comfortable with, then that person doesn't really care about them.

I think this is a really important thing to teach in sex ed. I think there are too many people who think they have a responsibility to keep their partner happy, that their partner has some right to demand them to do things, or that maintaining the relationship is more important than their personal happiness, but they should know that no one ever has the right to make them do things they aren't comfortable with. Also that when someone says "you're making me uncomfortable" or "please stop", that, even if they've consented before, it's still rape if you don't stop.

.... Yeah, that's seriously a hard lesson to learn if no one has actually educated you about it. I have more regrets then I care to admit about my last relationship, because of that very thing... It's my job to keep her happy, right? And if I rarely want sex it's my fault and I need to just give in anyways because I love her and it's not *that* big a deal......... Except it is.

 

edit: And also, regardless of relationship-status, being in love with someone does *not* mean you owe them anything, does *not* give them the right to take advantage of you because they know how you feel. Another lesson hard-learned.

Edited July 25, 2013 by Marie19R

[Lila]

This is self-defeating. You support laws because you BELIEVE things "ought" to be a certain way. Some people support open access to abortion because they believe a fetus violates a woman's bodily autonomy. They BELIEVE that a woman has bodily autonomy and ought to be able to exercise that by clearing an unwanted human offspring out of her womb. -snip-

No. A fetus legally violates bodily autonomy if the woman does not want to carry to term.

[KageSora]

This is self-defeating. You support laws because you BELIEVE things "ought" to be a certain way. Some people support open access to abortion because they believe a fetus violates a woman's bodily autonomy. They BELIEVE that a woman has bodily autonomy and ought to be able to exercise that by clearing an unwanted human offspring out of her womb. Some people support open access to abortion because they BELIEVE people have a right to choose whether or not to terminate a pregnancy. Your beliefs have EVERYTHING to do with the sort of laws you support. You can't say that beliefs have nothing to do with laws, and then turn around and tell me you believe the law should recognize a woman's "right" to choose, because such a statement is based on your beliefs. What is the law based on if not beliefs in regards to rights, justice, etc?

I think it was more a statement about RELIGIOUS belief.

 

And, quite frankly, I want people to take their religion out of my laws. I'm not part of your religion, so WHY should you be legally allowed to force me to abide by your religious beliefs?

 

The wonderful thing about CHOICE is that the only it forced the religious to do... Is to stay the outta the business of other people.

[Kestra15]

This is self-defeating. You support laws because you BELIEVE things "ought" to be a certain way. Some people support open access to abortion because they believe a fetus violates a woman's bodily autonomy. They BELIEVE that a woman has bodily autonomy and ought to be able to exercise that by clearing an unwanted human offspring out of her womb. Some people support open access to abortion because they BELIEVE people have a right to choose whether or not to terminate a pregnancy. Your beliefs have EVERYTHING to do with the sort of laws you support. You can't say that beliefs have nothing to do with laws, and then turn around and tell me you believe the law should recognize a woman's "right" to choose, because such a statement is based on your beliefs. What is the law based on if not beliefs in regards to rights, justice, etc?

However the belief in bodily autonomy is inclusive; that is, it allows for those who believe that they have the right to abort, but also allows those who believe that abortion is wrong to stick to those beliefs. A law outlawing abortion on religious grounds is exclusive; it restricts choice and autonomy. And that is where the clash lies.

 

Honest to God I don't care what you believe. Believe that life begins at conception and that abortion is murder, I won't stop you. A law allowing abortion isn't a law forcing all abortions, it allows you to hold to that belief and, should that belief hold if you impregnate a girl who also holds to those beliefs, you are allowed to keep the kid. We won't force you to abort. We won't judge you for it. What we judge you for is trying to exercise that belief on others.

 

And trust me, the last time someone tried guilt-tripping my sister about attending the abortion clinic ended up sat on his ass not sure what just happened as my sister went inside to undertake one of the most upsetting - but most necessary - procedures of her life.

[Fuzzbucket]

This is self-defeating. You support laws because you BELIEVE things "ought" to be a certain way. Some people support open access to abortion because they believe a fetus violates a woman's bodily autonomy. They BELIEVE that a woman has bodily autonomy and ought to be able to exercise that by clearing an unwanted human offspring out of her womb. Some people support open access to abortion because they BELIEVE people have a right to choose whether or not to terminate a pregnancy. Your beliefs have EVERYTHING to do with the sort of laws you support. You can't say that beliefs have nothing to do with laws, and then turn around and tell me you believe the law should recognize a woman's "right" to choose, because such a statement is based on your beliefs. What is the law based on if not beliefs in regards to rights, justice, etc?

No, I support laws that are based on facts and freedom where it does no harm to others, not ones that are based on faith in the supernatural that is not shared by all, even by those who believe in some kind of supernatural.

 

I believe in traffic laws, for instance, because without them people would be killed a load more often by drivers on all sides of the road. I do not believe it is OK to say that a woman may not drive at all because some god thing says that isn't OK. Sure if the woman believes that too and chooses not to, that's something else. But if I were in one of the countries where the law is set that way, I would not be OK with that law. (So, before you ask, I would not go to that country in the first place. Not least as my only form of protest.)

 

That kind of law forces someone else's beliefs on me. The anti-abortion laws do the same. The pro-choice people are fine with your not wanting abortions; what they are not fine with is your imposing that belief on them. I TOTALLY respect your beliefs in terms of yourself, but not in relation to me. I have no right to tell you to stop believing in god, and you have no right to tell me I have to act according to the dictates of the god you believe in. The same applies to law makers.

Edited July 25, 2013 by fuzzbucket

[High Lord November]

This is self-defeating. You support laws because you BELIEVE things "ought" to be a certain way. Some people support open access to abortion because they believe a fetus violates a woman's bodily autonomy. They BELIEVE that a woman has bodily autonomy and ought to be able to exercise that by clearing an unwanted human offspring out of her womb. Some people support open access to abortion because they BELIEVE people have a right to choose whether or not to terminate a pregnancy. Your beliefs have EVERYTHING to do with the sort of laws you support. You can't say that beliefs have nothing to do with laws, and then turn around and tell me you believe the law should recognize a woman's "right" to choose, because such a statement is based on your beliefs. What is the law based on if not beliefs in regards to rights, justice, etc?

Religious beliefs and forcing said beliefs on everyone. Beliefs not based or supported on or by fact.

 

Pro-choice allows you to apply your belief to yourself, and in a perfect world, no one else, although that is sadly not the case.

 

 

People who support banning abortions have little science to back them up, or where it is used, it is used wrongly and misinterpreted. Basically all of it is based on religious beliefs, which you cannot back up as fact nor can it be accepted as fact. Therefore, you are *forcing* your beliefs on others. Pro-choice allows you to choose your own beliefs, whatever they are, and apply them to yourself.

 

Yes, so please tell me how we pro-choice are forcing our beliefs on others. Answer: we aren't. That's the difference.

 

 

 

I base my 'beliefs' on fact to get as close to the truth as possible. Fact: a foetus does not have the capability to think, be aware of itself, or even understand pain. Fact: A foetus is able to become a calcified mass or a tumour. There is nothing measurable that we can call the spirit. God may not exist and I do not believe it does.

 

Now, based off of that, and understanding that people do believe in deities, I want to allow you to make your own choices in regards to that matter. Do you believe that a foetus should be considered a person? Fine, go ahead. That's cool.

 

You are showing the opposite. Pro-birth means that "I don't care about your opinions, you are going to do what I say even if you don't believe in my god." That is the difference. We recognize there is a wide variety of opinions, and that they differ, so we are allowing you to choose your own path.

Edited July 25, 2013 by High Lord November

[babybluefire]

I am married and almost 30. My husband and I have two very much wanted children. We tried for literally years to have them. Still when I bought pregnancy tests I got nasty comments like " stupid little " and " is this a good thing" or " I hope you don't need an abortion". Simply because I look about five years younger than I am people are hoping I don't need an abortion for a very much wanted pregnancy. What the heck.

 

 

I can't even begin to tell you guys because this is a youth friendly forum what horrific comments have been made to me when I have bought condoms to prevent pregnancy while I was still nursing a baby. Because oh yes nursing a baby WILL NOT prevent ovulation and thus prevent pregnancy.

[HeatherMarie]

No, I support laws that are based on facts and freedom where it does no harm to others, not ones that are based on faith in the supernatural that is not shared by all, even by those who believe in some kind of supernatural.

 

I believe in traffic laws, for instance, because without them people would be killed a load more often by drivers on all sides of the road. I do not believe it is OK to say that a woman may not drive at all because some god thing says that isn't OK. Sure if the woman believes that too and chooses not to, that's something else. But if I were in one of the countries where the law is set that way, I would not be OK with that law. (So, before you ask, I would not go to that country in the first place. Not least as my only form of protest.)

 

That kind of law forces someone else's beliefs on me. The anti-abortion laws do the same. The pro-choice people are fine with your not wanting abortions; what they are not fine with is your imposing that belief on them. I TOTALLY respect your beliefs in terms of yourself, but not in relation to me. I have no right to tell you to stop believing in god, and you have no right to tell me I have to act according to the dictates of the god you believe in. The same applies to law makers.

So so so much THIS.

 

When I was a kid I always used to hear this phrase, "separation of church and state". I never totally understood what it meant, but I think it's become fairly important in the abortion issue.

 

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

 

(bolding mine) Now, what does that mean? Congress isn't allowed to make laws restricting or prohibiting religion...... Doesn't that also mean that they aren't allowed to make laws BECAUSE OF religion? That's what makes the most sense to me.

 

Because it DOESN'T make sense for America, land of many many different religions, to stand behind laws that are made because of ONE or SOME religion's views.

[Kelkelen]

I am married and almost 30. My husband and I have two very much wanted children. We tried for literally years to have them. Still when I bought pregnancy tests I got nasty comments like " stupid little " and " is this a good thing" or " I hope you don't need an abortion". Simply because I look about five years younger than I am people are hoping I don't need an abortion for a very much wanted pregnancy. What the heck.

 

 

I can't even begin to tell you guys because this is a youth friendly forum what horrific comments have been made to me when I have bought condoms to prevent pregnancy while I was still nursing a baby. Because oh yes nursing a baby WILL NOT prevent ovulation and thus prevent pregnancy.

It's such a shame that people react that way. Why can't they just mind their own business? And why do we assume anyone testing for pregnancy can't possibly want to be pregnant? So many of these awkward situations and hurtful (or downright *mean*) comments could just be avoided if people could manage not to make assumptions about the woman involved.

 

One of my friends is a very dogmatically practicing Catholic, and has been using NFP (Natural Family Planning) with great success. If it's done correctly, it is very reliable, and she and her husband are very conscientious about it. They've had three children, all at times when they wanted the pregnancies to happen. However, during a checkup on the third pregnancy at the hospital, the doctors asked her what form of birth control she had been using, and then suggested that she might want to try another one, as if her current pregnancy had been an unwanted accident, based on her choice of contraception. She laughed about it, but she was also really angered that they just assumed she *didn't* want to be having her third baby!

 

I like that in Madrid, pharmacies will often have window displays of condoms and lubricants when they are on sale. There are also coin-operated condom dispensers in every metro station, and outside every pharmacy, so that even when they're closed at night, you could probably buy condoms on every block if you wanted to. It's not hurting anyone, and it could be helping a *lot* of people prevent diseases and unwanted pregnancies.

[Fuzzbucket]

I like that in Madrid, pharmacies will often have window displays of condoms and lubricants when they are on sale. There are also coin-operated condom dispensers in every metro station, and outside every pharmacy, so that even when they're closed at night, you could probably buy condoms on every block if you wanted to. It's not hurting anyone, and it could be helping a *lot* of people prevent diseases and unwanted pregnancies.

I remember the first time I went to Stockholm in the 60s, I was amazed to see a coin-op Durex machine on the street - just - THERE, on a random wall ! SO sensible. (I wanted to buy a packet, as they had an option for "tartan" - but I didn't need them then and I was broke...)