Abortion

[eritated]

As for forcing them to give birth, take a look at the film never let me go, It's about people being forced to give their organs. Anyways they would be given the option to abort, the whole reason of the plausible reason thing would be to keep a record for the government, to see if people felt unequipped, so the government could alter things to make people more comfortable, example is if teenage pregnancies and abortions were on the rise, the government would give out more classes in school about contraception and make access to it easier, I never stated they would HAVE to give birth.

 

Erica, I still could make fun of atheism, even if it is my own belief

The film you mentioned is just that: a fictional story. This is not a story. This is the real life (not just fantasy ), and this is a real issue.

 

Given your stance of "they should have a plausible reason for getting an abortion", what if the pregnant teenager was in perfect health? Would you still force her to give birth? I highly doubt that "having a plausible reason" would make the government help out.

 

I'm going to end this side-conversation now, but honestly, I wouldn't care if you made fun of Atheism.

[Totts]

Erica, Please read my post before you post.

Edited October 13, 2013 by Totts

[eritated]

Erica, Please read my post before you post.

I'm not sure why you think I'm the one attacking you, as it seems to be the opposite.

 

I think I'm interpreting what you're saying differently than what you actually mean. In my eyes, what you seem to be is basically what prairiecow said. By you saying that "because she doesn't want to" is not a good enough reason, it's implying that those women should be forced to give birth, which irritates me greatly. A woman should be able to do what she wants with her body, and if she doesn't want to be pregnant and give birth, she shouldn't have to. Nobody should be dictating for her what is a good enough reason and what isn't.

[Totts]

If you read my post you would've realised that it said they could still get the abortion and the plausible system was in place to help the government.

[eritated]

If you read my post you would've realised that it said they could still get the abortion and the plausible system was in place to help the government.

Please stop implying that I have not read your post. I did. Several times. But obviously you don't seem to understand that people interpret things differently.

 

I still don't see how that will in any way help the government. Schools will still be teaching abstinence, instead of giving us proper sex-ed. How do you know that this will make the government create easier access to contraceptives?

[Totts]

the contraceptives were just an example, and to give easier access they would supply them to more shops.

[eritated]

But why would women having to give a reason for abortion make the government suddenly go "Oh yeah, we should probably do more to help prevent unwanted pregnancies"?

[Brite]

, so the government could alter things to make people more comfortable, example is if teenage pregnancies and abortions were on the rise, the government would give out more classes in school about contraception and make access to it easier, I never stated they would HAVE to give birth.

 

A lot of schools usually deny the teaching of contraception due to religion and some think it's plain inappropriate and don't want to encourage the kids to have sex, EVEN THOUGH schools that DO teach about contraception have less teen pregnancy rates.

[Totts]

Why do people voting suddenly cause the government to switch parties? isn't it obvious, they react to things happening.

Edited October 13, 2013 by Totts

[Infinis]

 

As for forcing them to give birth, take a look at the film never let me go, It's about people being forced to give their organs. Anyways they would be given the option to abort, the whole reason of the plausible reason thing would be to keep a record for the government, to see if people felt unequipped, so the government could alter things to make people more comfortable, example is if teenage pregnancies and abortions were on the rise, the government would give out more classes in school about contraception and make access to it easier, I never stated they would HAVE to give birth.

 

Teaching about contraception alone does not work, just like preaching (yes, preaching) abstinence only does not work. The United States needs proper sex ed for its citizens to be properly educated, and proper sex ed includes discussions of sex, its results - babies, birth, and complications, ways to prevent pregnancy, and options for women who have an unwanted pregnancy.

 

Why does the government even need to keep a record? The government doesn't even fund abortions.

 

"I don't want to be pregnant" is an extremely valid reason to not have a child, to me. It's hard to love something you don't want, and adoption isn't exactly a great option.

[Totts]

Infinis, I'm not talking specifically about the american government, I'm talking about a government with a NHS, Which is something every country should have, and the NHS would fund abortions.

[TikindiDragon]

Infinis, I'm not talking specifically about the american government, I'm talking about a government with a NHS, Which is something every country should have, and the NHS would fund abortions.

And does, in the UK. While I do understand that there are issues in the States, it is not the only place in which abortion discussions take place. As far as I have been able to tell at no point has Totts suggested that acess to abortions should be restricted for any reason. Y'all have just latched onto the idea that people should perhaps discuss the *why* first, and look at what the alternatives are, and turned it into the idea that Totts is suggesting that abortions should be restricted.

 

Seriously, guys, I understand you may be defensive but dog-piling on someone for something they didn't actually say isn't really going to help at all.

[Shienvien]

Totts said that a woman must provide a "valid" reason for the abortion before she can get one, as far as I can tell...

 

And amongst other things, Totts apparently stated that "she does not want to be pregnant or give birth" is not a valid reason to be able to get an abortion. ...Which can be a problematic standpoint.

 

 

@Totts: true or false?

 

Also, why do you hold that a woman must provide any reason? Why shouldn't she be simply able to keep her reasons to herself to avoid harassment and judgement?

[whitebaron]

Actually, I think that a woman should not only provide a reason, but go through intensive counselling. They should be impartial, but honestly? Every abortion decision (for the good or for the bad) risks psychological damage later, so best be safe than sorry.

[Brite]

Actually, I think that a woman should not only provide a reason, but go through intensive counselling. They should be impartial, but honestly? Every abortion decision (for the good or for the bad) risks psychological damage later, so best be safe than sorry.

Pregnancy also has rather high risks of psychological damage, much more so than abortions and when a woman does feel guilty and horrible, it's most likely due to the fact that she didn't want one in the first place or was pressured. There are MANY women (some here) who have had abortions and feel no regret or "damaged".

[whitebaron]

Pregnancy also has rather high risks of psychological damage, much more so than abortions and when a woman does feel guilty and horrible, it's most likely due to the fact that she didn't want one in the first place or was pressured. There are MANY women (some here) who have had abortions and feel no regret or "damaged".

see, this kind of attitude makes it so hard to support hardcore pro-choicers. they are never content that anything but absolute free choice will do, and defend that idea so violently, that they consider anything else already an attack on free choice

 

I never said anything about pregnancy, or about being pressurized. I just said that its not at all standard procedure to do so, and would help quite some women to get over with it better.

[Cecona]

Actually, I think that a woman should not only provide a reason, but go through intensive counselling. They should be impartial, but honestly? Every abortion decision (for the good or for the bad) risks psychological damage later, so best be safe than sorry.

And not being able to get an abortion and forced to carry a child she does not want isn't psychologically damaging? If a woman does not want to keep a pregnancy you should never force her to keep it, and trying to "counsel" them basically sounds like to me that they would instead force the woman to change her own thoughts and opinion because they are not what you agree with. The idea of using therapy and counseling to convince a woman to keep a baby is horrifying, and any real medical professional in the mental health field would most likely never agree to such a thing.

[whitebaron]

IMPARTIAL

google the meaning or read my posts.

 

thank you.

[Cecona]

IMPARTIAL

google the meaning or read my posts.

 

thank you.

Imparial or not the way it was implied, to me, felt like you were saying they need counseling because they don't want to keep the pregnancy.

[eritated]

IMPARTIAL

google the meaning or read my posts.

 

thank you.

Why do some people here keep assuming that just because someone provides a rebuttal to their posts that they don't agree with, the person(s) are not reading their posts? It's an awfully silly thing to do.

[TikindiDragon]

Imparial or not the way it was implied, to me, felt like you were saying they need counseling because they don't want to keep the pregnancy.

Or make sure they're supported to make whatever decision they wish, and to help make sure they're happy and mentally stable throughout.

 

That would be what was implied by 'Impartial'.

 

Edit: @Erica - might be because you guys seem to be putting a spin on eveything that comes across as anti-abortion, when I, certainly, am 99.99% sure that wasn't what was meant. To a certain extent part of me isn't sure the hostility isn't coming because it's men posting.

Edited October 13, 2013 by TikindiDragon

[Obscure_Trash]

Light, that'd be plausible, but saying she doesn't want to be pregnant for nine months and give birth is like saying that she doesn't want to save a drowning person.

Actually, making a pregnant person stay pregnant because their reason "isn't good enough" for you (ie they don't want to be pregnant) is more akin to pushing a person into the water that can't swim, giving them no life saving device (something that floats), and telling them to go save the drowning person.

 

IMPARTIAL

google the meaning or read my posts.

 

Doesn't actually make anything better.

 

-How are you supposed to get someone truly impartial?

 

But most importantly: why is it so necessary to harass, bully, and demean pregnant people who want an abortion? Pregnancy is much more dangerous. Childbirth has many more long last affects - physical and mental. Abortion isn't the end of the world. =_= I think counseling should be available for people after abortion, pregnancy, or adoption if they need. I think family planning should be easily available.

 

I am completely against someone 'impartial' scrutinizing a person's decision to get an abortion, likely trying to convince them otherwise. =_=

 

People don't just make the decision to get an abortion lightly. It's something they've thought about. It's their choice. Just leave them alone.

Edited October 13, 2013 by SockPuppet Strangler

[whitebaron]

Why do some people here keep assuming that just because someone provides a rebuttal to their posts that they don't agree with, the person(s) are not reading their posts? It's an awfully silly thing to do.

Its because, especially in this thread, people assume way to much about what people "could have implied" when they have said NOTHING at all like it.

 

Its ok to misunderstand stuff that's there, but implying something thats not at all mentioned... its like if I now said, Erica thinks all people here who post against abortion are silly. It has nothing to do with your post.

 

To a certain extent part of me isn't sure the hostility isn't coming because it's men posting.

Pretty much what I thought, when I read socks posting. Men must be always forcing women to keep their babies, huh.

Edited October 13, 2013 by whitebaron

[Obscure_Trash]

Edit: @Erica - might be because you guys seem to be putting a spin on eveything that comes across as anti-abortion, when I, certainly, am 99.99% sure that wasn't what was meant. To a certain extent part of me isn't sure the hostility isn't coming because it's men posting.

Or because the statement was: "Actually, I think that a woman should not only provide a reason, but go through intensive counselling."

 

Implying:

-A pregnant person has to have somebody else approve their decision before they can take control of their own life

-They will be forced through "intensive" so likely time consuming counseling beforehand, which could push them out of the time frame allowed for abortions

-A pregnant person can't even decide if they want counseling or not, they are forced into it

 

If that's not what the statement meant, it is very, very badly worded.

 

Men must be always forcing women to keep their babies, huh.

 

Not just women can get pregnant and in the US, where my knowledge comes from, yeah. I don't feel like looking up the post that shows how much abortion is restricted in all the states.

Edited October 13, 2013 by SockPuppet Strangler

[Cecona]

I honestly don't pay attention to a persons gender on the forum, I actually thought whitebaron was a woman. I don't care if it's a man or woman telling another they can't get an abortion even if they want to. I agree that counseling AFTERWARDS is what is needed plus lots of support from people. What is NOT needed are others forcing a woman to not only state her reason why she wants to terminate a pregnancy, but also force her to take counseling because of it.

 

The way it was said made me assume you meant counseling and a reason was needed before she could even attempt to get an abortion.