Abortion

[ShinyTomato]

It seems like I only know the well-done crowd, then. In this thread, it basically sounds like 99% of the us is poor, misinformed, or has some disabilities. Now I ask myself: where do all those other people come from that I know?

 

46.2 million Americans live below the poverty line as of last year. The US education system comes in at number 33 in the world in reading, science and maths, after Russia, Brazil and Mexico. Healthcare? The US is ranked #38 in healthcare, getting our butts handed to us by countries like Saudi Arabia and Colombia.

[HeatherMarie]

I'm just going to leave a few statistics here for whitebaron, maybe they'll help with understanding, maybe not.

 

USA QuickFacts:

High school graduate or higher, percent of persons age 25+, 2007-2011 85.4%

 

Bachelor's degree or higher, percent of persons age 25+, 2007-2011 28.2%

 

(see a big difference there? Higher-education is EXPENSIVE and not everyone can afford it. College degrees = better jobs, better pay, but you have to pay so much in order to *get* that degree...)

 

Persons below poverty level, percent, 2007-2011 14.3%

(Believe me when I say that, on average, this HAS risen since 2011. My town has a 26% poverty rate right now, for example, as reported on the news)

 

Local Disability Data for Arizona:

Ages 16-64 % of Total Population 68.8%

 

 

So yes, whitbaron, what you have experienced with your well-off friends is *not* the majority of America, so please don't assume that everyone has the same access and privileges your friends do.

[angelicdragonpuppy]

In almost no cases is there justification to kill an unborn human being. Because that's what they are. There is no point, going back from the time of conception, that a human baby magically stops being human. It doesn't happen at six months, or three months, or even one month. Not until the sperm and egg split and are no longer a unified human does it cease to be one. Not having certain organs developed yet doesn't make an embryo non-human any more than a person being on life support because their organs have failed or been destroyed by wounds makes them non-human. With that being said, the only, absolute only case in which abortion is justifiable is if the mother has such severe medical problems during the birth that it boils down to a choice between her life and the infant's, in which case save the one who already has formed loving relationships with other human beings. A mother simply being depressed or anxious about a pregnancy is not enough to justify killing the child. I have dealt with severe depression at points in my life, but it by no means would give me the right to take a life. On the other hand, I understand there are plenty of cases where a mother could be outright terrified by having a child--and in those cases, focus should be on finding ways to support and help such people, rather than on focusing to make abortion more accessible. Abortion is not a solution, any more than throwing money at a starving person who has nowhere to go buy food is a solution. There should be more focus on birth control, too... I really question if there'd be so many millions of people who feel the need to have abortions every year if birth control was made more available... but on the other hand there, if you have a decent job and income, you shouldn't have free birth control provided to you. Sorry, bub, but you can afford it yourself, so quit whining and go get it.

 

Heh, rambled over a lot of different things there, but the most important bit is the first part. A fetus is a human. That fact is unchangeable. There is no magic 'no longer human' point going back from birth. And thus, again, the cases in which abortion is justifiable are one in a million, not one in every two cases.

Edited October 22, 2013 by angelicdragonpuppy

[hydrargyrum]

In almost no cases is there justification to kill an unborn human being. Because that's what they are. There is no point, going back from the time of conception, that a human baby magically stops being human. It doesn't happen at six months, or three months, or even one month. Not until the sperm and egg split and are no longer a unified human does it cease to be one. Not having certain organs developed yet doesn't make an embryo non-human any more than a person being on life support because their organs have failed or been destroyed by wounds makes them non-human. With that being said, the only, absolute only case in which abortion is justifiable is if the mother has such severe medical problems during the birth that it boils down to a choice between her life and the infant's, in which case save the one who already has formed loving relationships with other human beings. A mother simply being depressed or anxious about a pregnancy is not enough to justify killing the child. I have dealt with severe depression at points in my life, but it by no means would give me the right to take a life. On the other hand, I understand there are plenty of cases where a mother could be outright terrified by having a child--and in those cases, focus should be on finding ways to support and help such people, rather than on focusing to make abortion more accessible. Abortion is not a solution, any more than throwing money at a starving person who has nowhere to go buy food is a solution. There should be more focus on birth control, too... I really question if there'd be so many millions of people who feel the need to have abortions every year if birth control was made more available... but on the other hand there, if you have a decent job and income, you shouldn't have free birth control provided to you. Sorry, bub, but you can afford it yourself, so quit whining and go get it.

 

Heh, rambled over a lot of different things there, but the most important bit is the first part. A fetus is a human. That fact is unchangeable. There is no magic 'no longer human' point going back from birth. And thus, again, the cases in which abortion is justifiable are one in a million, not one in every two cases.

To me, being sentient, being able to process the fact that it is alive, feeling pain, fearing death, etc are fundamental parts of being human. You don't have to be able to express that consciousness (in other words, you don't have to be able to say "I'm alive"), but if you don't have it and it can be proven that you don't have it, then in my opinion, it's not human. I absolutely DO NOT view a fetus as a human. No more than you view a separate egg cell and sperm cell as human. Because to me, having a full set of human DNA isn't the defining attribute of humanity, it's the ability to react to what's around it; it's being conscious. Hard to state exactly, but a fetus definitely does not fit my definition.

 

In other words, I don't think you get to simply say "I say it's human, therefore it's human". I say it's not human, so we can't BOTH be right.

 

But even then, even if a fetus is equivalent to a fully grown human, I don't think it matters. No born person has the right to use another person's body against their will. Until you start demanding that EVERYONE who dies becomes an organ donor, and that anyone who can has to donate their extra kidney and donate blood, then I don't see why you think you can demand that a pregnant person give up the use of their body for a fetus.

Edited October 22, 2013 by hydrargyrum

[WereJace]

I would like to live in this place where medical care is free, unwed mothers are given generous financial and community support, mental illness is nonexistent, excellent adoptive parents are in abundance and willing to accept absolutely every single age and race of child, no one is ever raped or molested and there are no financial, social, educational, professional, familial etc. setbacks surrounding parenting.

[ShinyTomato]

In almost no cases is there justification to kill an unborn human being. Because that's what they are. There is no point, going back from the time of conception, that a human baby magically stops being human. It doesn't happen at six months, or three months, or even one month. Not until the sperm and egg split and are no longer a unified human does it cease to be one. Not having certain organs developed yet doesn't make an embryo non-human any more than a person being on life support because their organs have failed or been destroyed by wounds makes them non-human. With that being said, the only, absolute only case in which abortion is justifiable is if the mother has such severe medical problems during the birth that it boils down to a choice between her life and the infant's, in which case save the one who already has formed loving relationships with other human beings. A mother simply being depressed or anxious about a pregnancy is not enough to justify killing the child. I have dealt with severe depression at points in my life, but it by no means would give me the right to take a life. On the other hand, I understand there are plenty of cases where a mother could be outright terrified by having a child--and in those cases, focus should be on finding ways to support and help such people, rather than on focusing to make abortion more accessible. Abortion is not a solution, any more than throwing money at a starving person who has nowhere to go buy food is a solution. There should be more focus on birth control, too... I really question if there'd be so many millions of people who feel the need to have abortions every year if birth control was made more available... but on the other hand there, if you have a decent job and income, you shouldn't have free birth control provided to you. Sorry, bub, but you can afford it yourself, so quit whining and go get it.

 

Heh, rambled over a lot of different things there, but the most important bit is the first part. A fetus is a human. That fact is unchangeable. There is no magic 'no longer human' point going back from birth. And thus, again, the cases in which abortion is justifiable are one in a million, not one in every two cases.

Actually, that's not true. There is no guarantee that a zygote will be able to become human. The legal cut off for abortion is still well within the gem period where a fetus can become a tumor, a parasitic mass, or a calcified mass.

 

Further, in my opinion, there is NEVER justification to take away a woman's self-autonomy and violate her body without consent for ten months. The amount of pregnant women committing suicide is already rising with abortion becoming harder to get.

[sparkle10184]

In almost no cases is there justification to kill an unborn human being. Because that's what they are. There is no point, going back from the time of conception, that a human baby magically stops being human. It doesn't happen at six months, or three months, or even one month. Not until the sperm and egg split and are no longer a unified human does it cease to be one. Not having certain organs developed yet doesn't make an embryo non-human any more than a person being on life support because their organs have failed or been destroyed by wounds makes them non-human. With that being said, the only, absolute only case in which abortion is justifiable is if the mother has such severe medical problems during the birth that it boils down to a choice between her life and the infant's, in which case save the one who already has formed loving relationships with other human beings. A mother simply being depressed or anxious about a pregnancy is not enough to justify killing the child. I have dealt with severe depression at points in my life, but it by no means would give me the right to take a life. On the other hand, I understand there are plenty of cases where a mother could be outright terrified by having a child--and in those cases, focus should be on finding ways to support and help such people, rather than on focusing to make abortion more accessible. Abortion is not a solution, any more than throwing money at a starving person who has nowhere to go buy food is a solution. There should be more focus on birth control, too... I really question if there'd be so many millions of people who feel the need to have abortions every year if birth control was made more available... but on the other hand there, if you have a decent job and income, you shouldn't have free birth control provided to you. Sorry, bub, but you can afford it yourself, so quit whining and go get it.

 

Heh, rambled over a lot of different things there, but the most important bit is the first part. A fetus is a human. That fact is unchangeable. There is no magic 'no longer human' point going back from birth. And thus, again, the cases in which abortion is justifiable are one in a million, not one in every two cases.

A fetus is not a person. It does not have a 100% chance of becoming one. Plenty of things could go wrong (miscarriage, etc). If you force a woman to have an unwanted pregnancy, you are not only hurting her, but also the kid. Imagine what kind of a life that child will have. They might be kept or put up for adoption. Neither is a good fate for an unwanted child. The adoption system is very messed up! I'm not going to go into detail, just search it in Google if you want more info. Most women who suddenly and unexpectedly become pregnant and are forced to give birth are not going to care for the baby properly. They may verbally and physically abuse it, not give it the care it needs, or even abandon it. That is no life.

Take this scenario:

A 13 year old girl becomes pregnant on accident. She is forced to keep the baby. She develops severe anxiety and depression. She gives birth and that is that. Her childhood is over. Her dreams to finish high school and go to college are crushed.

That is not an uncommon scenario. It happens all the time. Is it fair to the poor girl? She still had years left of just being a kid. But now she must care for a kid of her own. Children should finish being a child before having a child!

[Brite]

It has human dna. Then again so does my hair and fingernails. But it's not a BEING. DNA=/= personhood.

[HeatherMarie]

I'm so sick of the fetus=person debate that I'm not even going to argue that.

 

HOWEVER, it really doesn't matter. Since when can one "human" decide to use another fully grown human's body against their will? Do we live in a society where a patient needing a liver transplant can legally go CUT one out of any random person? Or doctors can strap down a random person off the street and *demand* that they give their liver/kidney/whatever to this stranger?

 

Uh, No. That's just not how things work. Likewise, a tiny unborn "human" who statistically may die naturally before birth anyways, does NOT HAVE THE RIGHT to TAKE OVER the pregnant woman's body for NINE MONTHS, completely AGAINST THEIR WILL. This includes FEEDING off the woman's body, taking nutrients that the woman needs, etc etc.

 

There is NO rationalization for that.

 

edit: You say you've had severe depression but that wouldn't justify an abortion.... Have you seen all the *other* reasons that have been put forth in this thread? The hundreds upon hundreds of reasons that a woman may be literally putting her *life* in jeopardy to carry a baby to term, plus the fact that adoption is not a end-point option, plus the woman who can't *afford* even the initial doctor's visits, nevermind NINE MONTHS of them, PLUS delivery...... there are MANY different reasons, and yes many of them would end in the woman killing herself anyways rather then GO THROUGH WITH THE PREGNANCY if not allowed an abortion. How is that better?

Edited October 22, 2013 by Marie19R

[Kestra15]

A fetus is a human. That fact is unchangeable.

Fetus =/= human. Fetus = fetus. Hence why it is called a fetus. If it was a human, it would be called a human.

[TCA]

A fetus is biologically human but that doesn't make it a person. I agree with the whole "perception and thought and being able to survive independent of another's body" being requirements for person.

 

I view abortion kind of like putting down a dog. It's sad and you shouldn't have to do it. But if the dog is really ill anyways, the shelters are overcrowded and it's not going to find a loving home, the previous owner can't or shouldn't take care of it, guess what? They're not going to be excited about it but they're going to put the dog down and it's better for everyone involved in the long run. Including the dog.

 

The only difference is, the dog isn't violating someone else's bodily autonomy and has MORE ability to think and perceive than a fetus at the point most abortions are done.

Edited October 22, 2013 by TheCompleteAnimorph

[Brite]

 

Uh, No. That's just not how things work. Likewise, a tiny unborn "human" who statistically may die naturally before birth anyways, does NOT HAVE THE RIGHT to TAKE OVER the pregnant woman's body for NINE MONTHS, completely AGAINST THEIR WILL. This includes FEEDING off the woman's body, taking nutrients that the woman needs, etc etc.

 

There is NO rationalization for that.

 

edit: You say you've had severe depression but that wouldn't justify an abortion.... Have you seen all the *other* reasons that have been put forth in this thread? The hundreds upon hundreds of reasons that a woman may be literally putting her *life* in jeopardy to carry a baby to term, plus the fact that adoption is not a end-point option, plus the woman who can't *afford* even the initial doctor's visits, nevermind NINE MONTHS of them, PLUS delivery...... there are MANY different reasons, and yes many of them would end in the woman killing herself anyways rather then GO THROUGH WITH THE PREGNANCY if not allowed an abortion. How is that better?

 

It seems that probirthers like to forget that pregnancy takes work. Expensive work. And when they're outsmarted and shown reality, they blame the woman with the usual card of "She should've kept her legs closed"

Edited October 23, 2013 by GhostChilli

[Infinis]

A fetus is a parasite as much as it is human, too, and yet we can kill effectively anything else parasitic at will and is even recommended in some cases. There is little to no difference between what a fetus and tapeworm do to the human body while inside it.

 

That said, to be a person requires life experience to me. A fetus in the womb has no life experience - hasn't even begun to really live. It has not made significant connections to anyone or anything in the world.

 

A fetus is human, yes, in that it has human DNA. But there is no guarantee that it will survive the milestones necessary to remain human. I don't even call fetuses babies anymore - 'baby' is a term I'd rather reserve for a loved, wanted fetus/child outside the womb.

 

To you, aborting a fetus is effectively never justifiable, but to me and many other people, it is never justifiable to deny a person bodily autonomy for the sake of a thing they do not want. I'm not allowed to demand or take your kidney against your will - and in much the same way, a woman should not be forced to carry a thing she doesn't want inside her body. And adoption isn't a great option, I'm sure Shiny could tell you all about that.

 

Basically what it boils down to is...bodily autonomy. It is against the law for anyone to take or use your body against your will, so it really doesn't matter if fetuses are given personhood or not. It is never justifiable to take away the bodily autonomy of someone else for the sake of a thing that may or may not be in the end.

 

I'd also like to note that:

pro-choicers are not people that go out and say "hey go get an abortion." All we ask is that people respect and uphold the right to a choice. You don't have to like it. There are a number of people who find abortion morally wrong and STILL uphold the right to choice.

[Brite]

 

A fetus is human, yes, in that it has human DNA. But there is no guarantee that it will survive the milestones necessary to remain human. I don't even call fetuses babies anymore - 'baby' is a term I'd rather reserve for a loved, wanted fetus/child outside the womb.

 

I always get annoyed when there's a pregnant woman around saying things like "I woke up and my baby was kicking." Or "My baby doesn't like it when I eat this." or my personal fave, "He/She likes it when I read to them and they love this book."

 

Yea hate me for it but it's a pet peeve of mine hearing "Baby" for a fetus, let alone saying they already have a personality within a few months of pregnancy.

Edited October 23, 2013 by GhostChilli

[whitebaron]

I always get annoyed when there's a pregnant woman around saying things like "I woke up and my baby was kicking." Or "My baby doesn't like it when I eat this." or my personal fave, "He/She likes it when I read to them and they love this book."

 

Yea hate me for it but it's a pet peeve of mine hearing "Baby" for a fetus, let alone saying they already have a personality within a few months of pregnancy.

While the term baby might not be the correct medical term, its how those people really feel. Its a sign of emotional attachment, and that's good for the children later. People call all kinds of stuff "their baby", like projects, pcs, dogs, phones, ...

 

that aside, at around 20 weeks of gestation, they hear. They act on the feelings of their mother. So if the mother likes a book, the baby will act differently. Same goes for food, they actually can tase and smell some of what you eat, and they for sure will hear when their mothers belly is rumbling.

 

So please stop ridiculing people for their emotional attachment, its the same as if going to a sprtsfan chanting "go buffalo" and telling them: its the sabres/bills, you're using the wrong worrd. And besides that, its no use anyway.no cup for you ever.

 

@infinis: I have a lot of problems with your wordings. Its not pro choice, its pro-abort. You might want to work on that. Pro-choice should be objective, not militaristic and using derogatory terms - or else its just the other side of people campaignung with dead babies against abortions.

[Infinis]

@infinis: I have a lot of problems with your wordings. Its not pro choice, its pro-abort. You might want to work on that. Pro-choice should be objective, not militaristic and using derogatory terms - or else its just the other side of people campaignung with dead babies against abortions.

I wasn't using any derogatory terms, and I wasn't being militaristic?

 

Pro-choice is not pro-abortion, and honestly I don't care if people abort or don't. I support the right to having a choice, and as a woman things like this directly affect me and my future wellbeing, so I will support the retention of my right to choice.

 

Isn't pro-choice already the opposite of that? I'm not campaigning to kill all the fetuses or something. o.o I don't identify with the extremists on either side - extremism is ridiculous and largely unnecessary when it's easy enough to get your point across in a civil manner.

[Rosedamai]

that aside, at around 20 weeks of gestation, they hear. They act on the feelings of their mother. So if the mother likes a book, the baby will act differently. Same goes for food, they actually can tase and smell some of what you eat, and they for sure will hear when their mothers belly is rumbling.

Setting aside whether this information is correct or not, 20 weeks=5 months which is far over the first trimester, which I believe is 3 months, when most people get their abortion, so this information is unnecessary anyways.

Its not pro choice, its pro-abort. You might want to work on that. Pro-choice should be objective, not militaristic and using derogatory terms - or else its just the other side of people campaignung with dead babies against abortions.

I was not aware that people arguing passionately for the choice to abort was the same thing as "OMG EVERYONE SHOULD GET ABORTIONS BABIES ARE TERRIBLE" lol.

ETA: people want me to be connected to a thing that I don't want for 9 months and yet I'm supposed to be calm and nice and objective to everyone? I wonder how people will react when a random person comes up to them, says they need your body for 9 months because or else it will kill them, and then getting all upset when you tell them no. Just sayin'.

Edited October 23, 2013 by ylangylang

[Cecona]

While the term baby might not be the correct medical term, its how those people really feel. Its a sign of emotional attachment, and that's good for the children later. People call all kinds of stuff "their baby", like projects, pcs, dogs, phones, ...

 

that aside, at around 20 weeks of gestation, they hear. They act on the feelings of their mother. So if the mother likes a book, the baby will act differently. Same goes for food, they actually can tase and smell some of what you eat, and they for sure will hear when their mothers belly is rumbling.

 

So please stop ridiculing people for their emotional attachment, its the same as if going to a sprtsfan chanting "go buffalo" and telling them: its the sabres/bills, you're using the wrong worrd. And besides that, its no use anyway.no cup for you ever.

 

@infinis: I have a lot of problems with your wordings. Its not pro choice, its pro-abort. You might want to work on that. Pro-choice should be objective, not militaristic and using derogatory terms - or else its just the other side of people campaignung with dead babies against abortions.

If a person is pregnant and wants the baby of course they are going to call it a baby, but someone that doesn't will not call it a baby and it's not right to keep insisting that it is a baby when it has yet to reach that point in development. And it's been pointed out before that the majority of abortions are done well before the 20 week mark which is when they are pretty much going to turn into nothing else but a baby human.

 

I think the emotional attachment and calling it a baby is fine as long as it's wanted by the mother. It's not fair at all to keep insisting to a woman the unwanted thing growing inside her, that is no bigger than a thumbnail, is a baby.

[Obscure_Trash]

@infinis: I have a lot of problems with your wordings. Its not pro choice, its pro-abort. You might want to work on that. Pro-choice should be objective, not militaristic and using derogatory terms - or else its just the other side of people campaignung with dead babies against abortions.

Well, I understand where your misinformation about the US comes from now.

 

~

 

I always get annoyed when there's a pregnant woman around saying things like "I woke up and my baby was kicking." Or "My baby doesn't like it when I eat this." or my personal fave, "He/She likes it when I read to them and they love this book."

 

Yea hate me for it but it's a pet peeve of mine hearing "Baby" for a fetus, let alone saying they already have a personality within a few months of pregnancy.

 

I don't care if people who are going through with their pregnancy call it a baby - for them, it is going to be one, and since it's in their body, they have that right - but I definitely can't stand it when people insist on choosing to call the growth inside of other people a baby. It's hard to have an actual discussion on abortion with someone when they insist on becoming emotionally attached to any random human fetus by calling it a baby and insisting that's what it is.

[whitebaron]

Setting aside whether this information is correct or not, 20 weeks=5 months which is far over the first trimester, which I believe is 3 months, when most people get their abortion, so this information is unnecessary anyways.

 

I was not aware that people arguing passionately for the choice to abort was the same thing as "OMG EVERYONE SHOULD GET ABORTIONS BABIES ARE TERRIBLE" lol.

 

first off, it was a direct retort to someone saying that a kicking fetus should not be called a baby. Most mothers get to week 25 before they feel their babies. So please read that statement in context.

 

Secondly, wording matters. If you argue that parasites should be taken out of their vuctim, thats no longer neutral terms, its a form of psychological weapon wielded to skew the outcome. And that should be avoided if you stress CHOICE. Let them (pro-life) their propaganda andbdirty tactics - it is not required for pro choice, as you should ALWAYS look at the posituves of both sides.

 

@infinis: try talking to a willing mother-to-be about the parasite in her womb that resembles a tapeworm, and see if she gets mad at you. If sge does, your wording was far from neutral.

[Rosedamai]

first off, it was a direct retort to someone saying that a kicking fetus should not be called a baby. Most mothers get to week 25 before they feel their babies. So please read that statement in context.

 

Secondly, wording matters. If you argue that parasites should be taken out of their vuctim, thats no longer neutral terms, its a form of psychological weapon wielded to skew the outcome. And that should be avoided if you stress CHOICE. Let them (pro-life) their propaganda andbdirty tactics - it is not required for pro choice, as you should ALWAYS look at the posituves of both sides.

It's not though. I call something a baby because I want it. If I don't want it, it's medically NOT a baby. It's still a fetus. Please look up the dictionary definition of the term "fetus'.

Also, I was not aware that infinis stating their own view on what I assume what they'd feel if they had a fetus inside them is ~psychological warfare~. Also scientifically speaking, there's a debate on whether a fetus is indeed a parasite.

 

An organism that lives on or in a different kind of organism (the host) from which it gets some or all of its nourishment. Parasites are generally harmful to their hosts, although the damage they do ranges widely from minor inconvenience to debilitating or fatal disease.

 

I was not aware that this was about erasure of whether one may or may not choose to have a child. Nowhere do I see Infinis saying that yes, fetuses should be eradicated. They're stressing that one should have a CHOICE for abortion, which is basically....what pro-choice is. That isn't about being ~rational~. It's about bodily autonomy. One can have many ideas about, say, right of the people, and still be less than objective. Example: many revolutions, including the American Revolution. I'd hardly say Americans who were fighting to have the right to life, liberty, and happiness, which the British government could not provide at the time, were all objective in their cause.

Edited October 23, 2013 by ylangylang

[Hellen]

honestly...

 

Putting up my two cents here.

 

Aside from the ethical problems we all see here, I think that a person can choose to do what they want.

Carry the kid to term and keep it? Fine!

Carry the kid to term and give it up to adoption? Fine!

Abort an unwanted child (fetus, clump of cells, whatever you want to name it)? Fine!

 

 

In my opinion, it gets difficult if abortions are made without any counceling before.

 

In germany, you have to have at least one appointment with a councelor, to really get a view on what can be done, and if there aren't other possibilities.

If the wish is still there to have an abortion, it is only legal until the end of the 12th week, due to ethical reasons concerning the development of the fetus.

12 weeks are a long time. Seeing that most women know that "something's up" along the week 7-9, and that those appointments can be made on short notice!

Also, those councelors can direct you to a clinic of your choosing, or a clinic which is specialised to that.

An abortion to have is not a taboo here. Not really.

 

*sighs*

 

They mayor key is more health education, more sex ed, more possibilities of using contraception.

 

Because an abortion, just because you can't afford the pill?

Or worse, too lazy to use any form of protection?

 

Yeah, no. That's something that is not right. And I think that's what we all can agree too.

 

Illegalizing abortions?

A deep stroke against those women that are honestly not wanting their child, because of various reasons that I do not want to get further into, because of triggering content for myself.

 

 

And, not to forget.

An abortion is most always a difficult physical experience for each woman.

 

The excuse "It's my body, I can do with it what I want!", by women that have unprotected sex, is what is making me annoyed.

 

Those women I want to tell, please use the contraceptions you have access to.

Not only to not get pregnant, but also to reduce STD's.

 

 

Just ... an opinion...

[Infinis]

A human fetus being a parasite is a biological fact. I was not stating it to use it as some sort of weapon, simply as a fact to make a counterpoint. That said:

 

Please take what I say at face value without reading into it - I take things very literally myself because I often have trouble interpreting subtlety. I don't put subliminal messages into what I write, and if I do I actually don't realize they're there and that makes it an unintended thing. So, please, don't read between the lines with what I write... :/

 

I also stated that I reserve the term 'baby' for a wanted and loved fetus, or child outside the womb. If it's wanted, I will gladly call it a baby, but the proper medical term either way while it's in utero is fetus...I like using proper terms also, so I will continue to use this terminology, because it's normal for me. It is my opinion that it isn't a baby until it's wanted and/or outside the womb. Other people can call it whatever they want.

 

My wording there was not intended to be neutral, really - I was stating my opinion and choice of words. Opinions are never objective, and I am allowed to use whichever words I choose.

 

This still doesn't make me pro-abortion, and I am very confused as to how you reached such a conclusion :/

[Obscure_Trash]

[...] most women know that "something's up" along the week 7-9, and that those appointments can be made on short notice!

 

I wish that were true here in the States. =( Unfortunately, abortions are expensive, and some pregnant persons end up having to push back an abortion due to financial reasons. This can put them right near the cut-off or even make it too late for them to get one.

 

From 2006, 88% of abortions (62% of that by the 9th week) were done in the first 12 weeks. So most abortions are done in this time frame, but there can be reasons for later abortions.

 

Because an abortion, just because you can't afford the pill?

Or worse, too lazy to use any form of protection?

 

Yeah, no. That's something that is not right. And I think that's what we all can agree too.

 

Actually, no, I can't agree to that. If someone wants an abortion, then that justifies them having an abortion, IMO.

 

Of interest, for the US, again 2006 (in reply to the quote, but it's also relevant to earlier discussion): http://www.guttmacher.org/pubs/fb_induced_abortion.html

 

• Fifty-four percent of women who have abortions had used a contraceptive method (usually the condom or the pill) during the month they became pregnant. Among those women, 76% of pill users and 49% of condom users report having used their method inconsistently, while 13% of pill users and 14% of condom users report correct use.[8]

 

• Forty-six percent of women who have abortions had not used a contraceptive method during the month they became pregnant. Of these women, 33% had perceived themselves to be at low risk for pregnancy, 32% had had concerns about contraceptive methods, 26% had had unexpected sex and 1% had been forced to have sex.[8]

 

• 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 half of unintended pregnancies occur among the 11% of women who are at risk for unintended pregnancy but are not using contraceptives. Most of these women have practiced contraception in the past.[9,10]

 

~

 

Aside from that, contraception isn't cheap but sex is. For low income, sex is about one of the few recreational activities they can afford. It's a stress reliever, people can and do enjoy it, and it can help bring partners closer. It rather smacks of eugenics to just say that poor people, then, shouldn't have sex.

[Rosedamai]

The excuse "It's my body, I can do with it what I want!", by women that have unprotected sex, is what is making me annoyed.

You think abortions are cheap and they're using it as a ~contraceptive measure~? Cuz they're not.