Abortion

[Pokemonfan13]

That sounds like someone I know, and it wasn't even a teenage pregnancy. <.<

[Cecona]

That sounds like someone I know, and it wasn't even a teenage pregnancy. <.<

I know an adult mother like that as well as her teenage daughter who is also a mother.

 

It's like multiple generations of selfishness and irresponsibility

[Pokemonfan13]

Ouch. So where does the teenager dump her baby if her mom is just as bad? o.O

[Alice Rose]

If only that were the case with every teenage pregnancy, but all too often, especially here in the states, the teenage mother will not actually take care of the baby and instead will keep on trying to live the life they had of parties and friends. They will pass the baby on to their mother and that baby is probably lucky to even see it's real mother from time to time. At first I'm sure they enjoy the attention they get from having the baby and they think it will be just like baby sitting or having a new toy. But then once they realize how much responsibility and work it actually is they won't want to do any of that stuff. They'll only want to do the fun stuff that comes with having a baby, and then let others care for it when they decide they are done and want to do something else.

Really nice point, I forgot about it.

 

Something else I did forget: there are many women who abort, but with rudimentary methods, such with a hanger and wires, many of these cases end up with the death of both mom and baby. Legalizing abortion would also save many lives.

[Cecona]

I have no idea, PF, my mother and I stopped communicating with them after an incident happened that had to do with a jacket and some weed.

 

And Alice you are right, the people that want to ban abortion don't seem to understand that if a woman wants an abortion bad enough even the law won't keep her from having one. She will put her own life on the line to get rid of an unwanted fetus.

[Brite]

"Fake" abortion clinics have been popping up around my area where they'll give the girl sonograms but will instead preach to her about keeping the child and not give her an abortion. Sickening but they're allowed to do this.

[Cecona]

"Fake" abortion clinics have been popping up around my area where they'll give the girl sonograms but will instead preach to her about keeping the child and not give her an abortion. Sickening but they're allowed to do this.

I've heard about those, they will purposely keep pushing back the abortion date until it's too late to abort. You can tell if a clinic is fake or not by it's name but I can't remember specifically what it is you need to look for..

[Lila]

I've used a M.A.P once. I had to order it online and pay for overnight shipping. EVERY pharmacy near me was either out or told me they were out/didn't carry it(which I highly disbelieve considering my sister, who is a mother, was able to buy it at one of them, I guess I looked like an immature teen who deserved what I got to them.) So in total, the pill was over 60$ for me.

 

Right now I have an IUD, Mirena. Still shocked that I was able to get it, as my previous doc, said that I had a less than 10% chance of finding someone willing to do it. Condoms are still used and I STILL have paranoia of pregnancy, but sterilization is no option yet, though i won't quit trying. If I ever become pregnant, an abortion is what I'll seek. I try not to think about what will happen if I can find a place willing to perform...because I'm not letting something grow inside me..

If you don't min me asking, how old are you?

[WereJace]

I've heard about those, they will purposely keep pushing back the abortion date until it's too late to abort. You can tell if a clinic is fake or not by it's name but I can't remember specifically what it is you need to look for..

They're generally known as "crisis pregnancy centres". The best way to tell if you're dealing with one is to call them and ask what services they offer, specifically if they are an abortion provider. You can also look up local abortion providers on the National Abortion Federation website-CPCs aren't listed there, for obvious reasons.

 

(There are also usually coupons available for emergency contraception, though they may require a prescription.)

Edited November 14, 2013 by WereJace

[Cecona]

Right, I believe I first heard about them on tumblr. The post was basically a warning to women who were wanting abortions or people that knew such a person. Probably also pro-choice people as well to tell them just what force-birthers are up to now.

[Brite]

If you don't min me asking, how old are you?

I'm 19. It IS possible to get an IUD younger though. And without having to have kids, though your risks are a tad higher.

 

I've heard about those, they will purposely keep pushing back the abortion date until it's too late to abort.

 

I believe this part is the illegal part, though it's hard to prove if someone's trying to make a case of it.

 

[philpot123]

If anyone can find evidence of a CPC that falsely claims to provide abortions in order to deceive women into waiting till past the legal date, I'd love to see it. I've never seen a CPC advertise as anything BUT a provider of abortion alternatives, but perhaps deceptive ones exist. If they do, I would find that sort of tactic reprehensible.

[High Lord November]

If anyone can find evidence of a CPC that falsely claims to provide abortions in order to deceive women into waiting till past the legal date, I'd love to see it. I've never seen a CPC advertise as anything BUT a provider of abortion alternatives, but perhaps deceptive ones exist. If they do, I would find that sort of tactic reprehensible.

I can't comment on the CPC stuff right now because of time, but:

 

There are no abortion alternatives, though. You either have the baby or you don't. If you push someone to have their baby against their will, that's not an "alternative" but rather you forcing your own opinion on something that is, for some reason, a highly subjective subject. There are alternatives to parenting, but not to pregnancy.

Edited November 14, 2013 by High Lord November

[Obscure_Trash]

Just found Project Crisis: http://thecrisisproject.org/ Sadly they don't really seem active - the most recent investigation they link to is by salon, not themselves - because I'd love to see more of these exposed like this. =\

 

http://www.prochoice.org/about_abortion/facts/cpc.html

 

CPCs have a long history of deception. For example, some CPCs intentionally choose their name to mislead women into believing that they offer a wide range of services, including family planning and abortion care. In a 1989 report, the Family Research Council showed that women faced with an unplanned pregnancy were most likely to look in the Yellow Pages under the words "Pregnancy," "Medical," "Women's Centers" and "Clinics."6 Accordingly, CPCs often are advertised under these categories, as well as "Abortion Alternatives," and "Women's Organizations."7 CPCs also advertise through posters, signs, and billboards that contain messages like, "Free Pregnancy Test," or "Pregnant? Scared? We Can Help! Call 1-800 #."8 Women report, however, that when they call these numbers the CPC representatives evade questions about whether they provide abortions, and urge the women to make an appointment to meet with a 'counselor' to talk in person.9

 

CPCs' deceptive tactics extend to their physical appearance as well. CPCs often design their facilities to look like actual health care facilities with a waiting room, a partitioned check-in desk, and an ultrasound machine.10 They typically locate themselves near clinics that offer abortions in a deliberate attempt to increase their legitimacy and lure potential patients away from receiving abortion care by capitalizing on patients' confusion.11

 

Curtis J. Young, Turning Hearts Toward Life: Market Research for Crisis Pregnancy Centers, Family Research Council, 1998, p. 9.

See, e.g., LegalCare: Advice and Education for Pregnancy Centers from Care Net, Your Key to Advertising in the Yellow Pages, November 1993.

See, e.g., Care Net's website (available at http://www.care-net.org).

See Deb Berry, Choose Lies, Orlando Weekly, April 17, 2003.

Solow, supra note 5.

See Kaiser Daily Reproductive Health Report, Crisis Pregnancy Centers Moving to Expand Services, Seeking Government Funding, February 19, 2002; see also Alan Cooper, Abortion Battle: Prenatal Care or Pressure Tactics? The Washington Post, February 21, 2002, A01.

 

Might be language in comments, I didn't see any http://rhrealitycheck.org/article/2011/01/...crisis-centers/

http://25.media.tumblr.com/9104157ee07ef98...nedyo1_1280.png

 

http://www.nwlc.org/resource/%E2%80%9Ccris...tion-harm-women

http://expose-cpcs.tumblr.com/definition

 

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/2309498

 

May be language in comments, I didn't catch any http://www.huffingtonpost.com/caitlin-banc..._b_3763196.html

 

I can't find anything specifically on them "pushing back the abortion date until it's too late to abort"/"falsely claim[ing] to provide abortions in order to deceive women into waiting till past the legal date" (just copy'pasta'ing so I get the wordage right), but they do often advertise under abortion and don't answer questions about providing abortions in a direct manner. They do try to lure people in and they certainly use dishonest techniques to harass and manipulate people out of abortions and even out of birth control. They do keep your information and often harass you after you leave (such as this wonderful example). They do their best to shame you (such as warning for language in comments this lovely technique). I don't find it too much of a stretch that they display more dishonest techniques to trick pregnant folk into waiting until after the legal point to abort to try and abort.

[Pokemonfan13]

It is very possible to mislead women into thinking they provide abortions when they do not without actually lying, especially if the woman never asks those direct questions like "do you provide abortions? Yes or no" If they advertise under "abortion" like sock said especially, since they're advertising somewhere where people assume only abortion providers will be.

 

Just because they never actually lie doesn't mean it isn't sleazy as all getout and should be shut down if they aren't willing to be honest.

[LascielsShadow]

It is very possible to mislead women into thinking they provide abortions when they do not without actually lying, especially if the woman never asks those direct questions like "do you provide abortions?  Yes or no"  If they advertise under "abortion" like sock said especially, since they're advertising somewhere where people assume only abortion providers will be.

 

Just because they never actually lie doesn't mean it isn't sleazy as all getout and should be shut down if they aren't willing to be honest.

Exactly. That's why my city (Baltimore) passed a law requiring CPCs to post signs disclosing that they are not actually medical facilities and do not perform abortions, nor do they refer women to places which do offer abortion services. Here, at least, it's a lot harder for CPCs to mislead women. (The people behind at least one CPC weren't happy, and the ordinance was blocked for a while, but the Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals reversed the decision and sent the case back to a lower court to be re-heard properly. Until then, it's in effect.)

Edited November 14, 2013 by LascielsShadow

[unforgotten13]

Having had a daughter, I cannot agree with anyone who would get an abortion simply for convenience sake. I was 18 with no job and had just started out with my husband when i got pregnant. We were living in a 30ft travel trailer. My own grandma said "Well, you screwed up, didn't you?" I never ONCE considered abortion. A year and a half later, and we're all doing very well, after a lot of hard work.

 

In my personal belief, it should be illegal, except in instances of health (Of the mother or baby. This is the only reason I would consider for myself.), or rape (which I really don't agree with, but it's better than the mother committing suicide). It is a child. Anything after there is a heartbeat is WAY to far along to convince me that they aren't alive.

 

I also don't like the "it's all cool man" attitude women who get abortions are being encouraged to have. It is a SERIOUS decision with a human life in the balance. There should be ultrasounds and a note of recommendation from a psychiatrist, to weed out the people who are unsure or being pressured by others. But instead it's treated like removing a wart.

 

No, my reasons aren't religious, so don't try to pigeonhole me with that. All our other laws are centered around not harming other humans and even animals. If we won't protect our own young, then we've failed at humanity. And it's a slippery slope. If it starts with early abortion, where does it end? In a few years, will it be at 6 months gestation? In two decades, 8 months? In fifty years will it have gone up to just after birth? Or in a century, will it be when the child shows signs of emotional problems or sickness? Sounds crazy now, yes, but a hundred years ago you would have been called evil if you used a form of birth control that causes "flushing" (a forced period).

 

This seems almost harmless now, but it has the potential to escalate quickly.

 

Disclaimer: at the same time, other people are allowed to have their opinions. I don't want to make anyone feel bad. I do think anyone who gets an abortion for a reason less than health has made a yucky decision, but they are not bad, evil, or "going to hell". I would still be friends with the person, even though I could not understand or agree with their decision.

 

 

Edited November 14, 2013 by unforgotten13

[Obscure_Trash]

Having had a daughter, I cannot agree with anyone who would get an abortion simply for convenience sake. I was 18 with no job and had just started out with my husband when i got pregnant. We were living in a 30ft travel trailer. My own grandma said "Well, you screwed up, didn't you?" I never ONCE considered abortion. A year and a half later, and we're all doing very well, after a lot of hard work.

 

In my personal belief, it should be illegal, except in instances of health (Of the mother or baby. This is the only reason I would consider for myself.), or rape (which I really don't agree with, but it's better than the mother committing suicide). It is a child. Anything after there is a heartbeat is WAY to far along to convince me that they aren't alive.

 

No, my reasons aren't religious, so don't try to pigeonhole me with that. All our other laws are centered around not harming other humans and even animals. If we won't protect our own young, then we've failed at humanity. And it's a slippery slope. If it starts with early abortion, where does it end? In a few years, will it be at 6 months gestation? In two decades, 8 months? In fifty years will it have gone up to just after birth? Or in a century, will it be when the child shows signs of emotional problems or sickness? Sounds crazy now, yes, but a hundred years ago you would have been called evil if you used a form of birth control that causes "flushing" (a forced period).

 

This seems almost harmless now, but it has the potential to escalate quickly.

 

Disclaimer: at the same time, other people are allowed to have their opinions. I don't want to make anyone feel bad. I do think anyone who gets an abortion for a reason less than health has made a yucky decision, but they are not bad, evil, or "going to hell". I would still be friends with the person, even though I could not understand or agree with their decision.

But not everybody is you, so why should we all be forced to abide by your choice if it may not be the right one for us?

 

Wow, I can't believe your grandma would say that to you. I'm sorry.

 

I am glad you are doing well now. Unfortunately, that doesn't work for everyone, even if they want the child/want a child at some point.

 

The argument isn't whether it's alive or not. The argument really isn't even personhood. The argument is bodily autonomy. You can't take someone's organs without their permission, not even if they are dead and if it would save lives. So why is it suddenly okay to control a pregnant person's body for the "benefit" of something growing inside of her? Benefit in quotation marks because just because a child is born doesn't mean it will have a good life.

 

It's not actually a child. It's a zygote, embryo, or fetus depending on development. It's not a child until it is born.

How would rape exception even be done? If you live in the US, have you done any research on our rape statistics? A teeny tiny majority of rapists actually see jail time out of the very few that are ever reported. Rape culture is rampant. Innocent until proven guilty - for the rapist, that is. Victims are blamed for their own rape if they are even believed. So what new hoops of harassment would we force on rape victims/survivors to prove their rape just so they could get an abortion? And how long would it take - what would be the chances of pushing back the abortion until it's too late to actually be preformed?

 

I believe we've failed when we value the lives of a few cells over a pregnant person. Pregnant people denied an abortion are more likely to fall into poverty. If they are in an abusive relationship, they are less likely to leave.

 

Except slippery slope is a fallacy for a reason. That's not how life works. We don't have to allow bestiality because we allow gay marriage. We don't have to allow infanticide because we allow abortion. They're different circumstances and should be treated as such.

 

There are still people out there who advocate against the use of birth control because it "kills a child" and "is a sin".

 

And finally, your last part confuses me a bit because you seem to accept that people have reasons other than health for which to get an abortion, but this whole time you've been talking about abortion needing to be illegal and how it will lead to infanticide and child murder.

Edited November 14, 2013 by SockPuppet Strangler

[Kelkelen]

...the people that want to ban abortion don't seem to understand that if a woman wants an abortion bad enough even the law won't keep her from having one. She will put her own life on the line to get rid of an unwanted fetus.

Basically, this.

 

I was pro-life when I was younger -- member of a Catholic youth group, went to protest marches in Washington, D.C., and so on.

 

However...the quoted fact is what changed my legal stance. I had to accept that women WILL abort, with or without clinics, with or without legality. If I take that as a given -- and I have to -- then I can either support legal action that preserves the mother's life, or support legal action that risks the life of every woman desperate enough to attempt a "home abortion," plus suppresses open communication about the mother's fears or other options by creating a further atmosphere of shame and taboo around abortion.

 

Above all that... I think that one of the most important tenets of any faith, OR of any ethical society, is free will. In the context of religion especially, I don't see how outlawing abortion would actually create a more moral society, or place a higher value on human life; nothing is moral if it is merely compulsory. And if God is all-powerful and loving, then as sad as the death of a child is, I don't doubt that God has that child in His/Her/Its/Their/Xer care.

 

I don't feel that my personal take on abortion has changed; I do believe that a fetus is a human life. However, so do the majority of women who choose to have abortions. They're aware that they're doing something which will have a huge impact on their lives and the lives of those around them. Having read a lot of firsthand stories, I see very, very few women taking the decision lightly, though of course a minority do. I strongly doubt that outlawing abortion will make the women who want an abortion "value life more highly."

[unforgotten13]

I said they may have reasons, but that I do not understand or agree with their reasons. My stand on the legality of it is the harm to human life that comes from abortion. I think in all honesty that "fetus" is a cop-out. It is the medical term, yes, but it is only used by pro-abortionists as a way to dehumanize the infant, and make it easier to stomach. It's similar to the way my people were called "savages" and "heathens" so it would be easy to convince people that it was okay to exterminate them and take away their land.

 

And while I know that it doesn't have rights until it's born that doesn't mean it shouldn't. Natives, Blacks, and women all had no rights at some time or another, but it wasn't right.

 

(PS: I'm not looking to argue. Just stating my opinions and what I think. It's legal in the US, likely will always be legal, and I don't vote for anyone or anything anyway so my opinion is just that. An opinion. It won't change anything.)

Edited November 14, 2013 by unforgotten13

[High Lord November]

I said they may have reasons, but that I do not understand or agree with their reasons. My stand on the legality of it is the harm to human life that comes from abortion. I think in all honesty that "fetus" is a cop-out. It is the medical term, yes, but it is only used by pro-abortionists as a way to dehumanize the infant, and make it easier to stomach. It's similar to the way my people were called "savages" and "heathens" so it would be easy to convince people that it was okay to exterminate them and take away their land.

 

And while I know that it doesn't have rights until it's born that doesn't mean it shouldn't. Natives, Blacks, and women all had no rights at some time or another, but it wasn't right.

 

(PS: I'm not looking to argue. Just stating my opinions and what I think. It's legal in the US, likely will always be legal, and I don't vote for anyone or anything anyway so my opinion is just that. An opinion. It won't change anything.)

Alright, so what's the difference between my arm and a fetus? How would you distinguish between the two other than one has the potential to become human? Notice the word 'potential'? It isn't a person yet.

 

Then we get into how far back you want to apply this 'it's human' thing. Is it when they are first conceived? Would you put the wellbeing of two, insentient cells above the mother? What about a fetus that could potentially be miscarried, is not near sentience, and cannot survive outside the womb?

 

If all human lives deserve to be protected, does that mean that mothers who miscarry should be punished like those who aborted? If you say no because it's natural, then shouldn't we just let the elderly, those affected by sickness, and those severely wounded die without help because it'd be the natural way? Do you start to see the difference between a person and a fetus?

 

Also, the word fetus is not a cop-out. A fetus does not equal a person. They are not the same, so they are not called by the same name. Yes, it is made of human cells, just like my arm is. No, they cannot survive outside of the womb and are basically a parasite, like I can. No, they are not sentient, do not have the emotions and connections that I do.

 

I believe that calling a fetus a person is just a term used by pro-lifers in order to appeal solely to the emotional part, and not the rational or logical part, of people so to sway them from aborting. The only thing is, if you're only appealing to emotions, you don't have a case. It needs to be backed up by non-biased facts. After you give the person the facts, then sure, they can decide for themselves. If you don't? You are simply using misinformation to sway people to your opinion.

[Infinis]

I said they may have reasons, but that I do not understand or agree with their reasons. My stand on the legality of it is the harm to human life that comes from abortion. I think in all honesty that "fetus" is a cop-out. It is the medical term, yes, but it is only used by pro-abortionists as a way to dehumanize the infant, and make it easier to stomach. It's similar to the way my people were called "savages" and "heathens" so it would be easy to convince people that it was okay to exterminate them and take away their land.

 

And while I know that it doesn't have rights until it's born that doesn't mean it shouldn't. Natives, Blacks, and women all had no rights at some time or another, but it wasn't right.

 

(PS: I'm not looking to argue. Just stating my opinions and what I think. It's legal in the US, likely will always be legal, and I don't vote for anyone or anything anyway so my opinion is just that. An opinion. It won't change anything.)

Pro-choicers are not pro-abortionists; this is something I would like to make abundantly clear - I kind of take some offense at being called one =/ In fact all our side asks is that people accept and support the right to choice. No one is asking you to like it or to have one yourself, and there are a number of people who are personally against abortion who will still support the choice to have one. The point is choice. Illegalizing abortion is not going to make it go away, but will only increase maternal deaths related to unsafe abortions (the coat hanger abortion is not a myth).

 

Fetus is a legitimate and accurate medical term. Before it becomes a fetus, it's an embryo, and before that it's a zygote. It's not a cop-out and I at least don't use it to dehumanize anything. I use it because that's what it is. That said, I do not believe a fetus becomes a person, let alone a child or baby, until it leaves the womb.

 

Personhood rights to a fetus won't matter anyway. No person (#1) can use the body of another person (#2) without the permission of the person (#2). When a woman does not want the fetus, it becomes something that is using her body against her will. This is not okay.

Edited November 14, 2013 by Infinis

[unforgotten13]

Yes but person #1 cannot kill person #2 either. Human rights would change.

 

A child in the womb has no "potential to become human" because it already is human. When a premature child is born, it is not considered inhuman because it did not reach 9 months gestation. I think a heartbeat and/or brain activity is a good measure of life since that is what doctors use to determine if someone is alive. In essence heartbeat+brain activity=life. In some cases, life doesn't even require a brain.

 

You cannot compare miscarrying children to letting old people die of natural causes since we have no control over the miscarriage but we DO have control over the old person's health...to an extent. We can give them medicine or put them in the hospital if needed. If you wanted to compare old people to unborn children though, abortion would be comparable to involuntary euthanasia of a healthy older person with the potential for having a long time left to live.

 

Oh and if an unborn child does not become a baby until birth then that's the kind of slippery slope I'm talking about. What's to stop someone from passing a law to allow abortion up until the time of birth?

Edited November 14, 2013 by unforgotten13

[Brite]

I said they may have reasons, but that I do not understand or agree with their reasons. My stand on the legality of it is the harm to human life that comes from abortion. I think in all honesty that "fetus" is a cop-out. It is the medical term, yes, but it is only used by pro-abortionists as a way to dehumanize the infant, and make it easier to stomach. It's similar to the way my people were called "savages" and "heathens" so it would be easy to convince people that it was okay to exterminate them and take away their land.

 

And while I know that it doesn't have rights until it's born that doesn't mean it shouldn't. Natives, Blacks, and women all had no rights at some time or another, but it wasn't right.

 

(PS: I'm not looking to argue. Just stating my opinions and what I think. It's legal in the US, likely will always be legal, and I don't vote for anyone or anything anyway so my opinion is just that. An opinion. It won't change anything.)

What exactly makes it a "baby" to you? Realize that fertilized eggs are not a guarantee to become a human. Some get washed out if unable to attach or get reabsorbed.

 

Yes but person #1 cannot kill person #2 either. Human rights would change.

 

Twins in the womb have been known to kill each other. Is that wrong? Fetuses can become masses or tumors. It is not a "person". Even if it was, what gives it the right to trump the mother's life?

 

 

A child in the womb has no "potential to become human" because it already is human.

 

Human DNA and personhood are two different things. It is not guaranteed to become a person. Therefore, can not have human rights.

Edited November 14, 2013 by GhostChilli

[unforgotten13]

Okay to clarify a re-word. It isn't so much that it should be illegal, it is more that people should not want to kill unborn children who have no say in the matter. It isn't a change in the law that needs to happen so much as a change in the people. It should never have become a societal normalcy for someone to abort an unborn child because it is an inconvenience to them.

 

I already clarified my definition of a living baby. Human life is defined in the medical community by a heartbeat and/or brain activity.

 

Twins in the womb don't knowingly and purposefully kill each other. And if it is a person then it's life trumps the woman's right to an empty womb for nine months. It doesn't trump her life. I've already said that in case of health problems abortion is understandable. The simple truth is that an abortion not because of health reasons or rape is simply for convenience. So yes, a child's life trumps the convenience of a selfish woman.

 

I did not say that they are a person I said they are human. There are severely mentally challenged people who were born with nearly no active brain activity or signs of actually being anything more than a shell, yet human rights still apply to them even though they are "not guaranteed to become a person.".