Abortion

[Obscure_Trash]

Well sock, I personally don't believe in most cases it is a responsible decision.

Well, tbh, that's not up to you. If you're not making the decision, you have no idea if it's responsible or not. It's their life, not yours. It is not your choice to make nor judge.

 

If you want to lower abortion rates, that's great! Here are things that are proven (yes, proven, they've worked in several other countries - for example, check up on Iran's birth rates after they started offering family planning and having religious leaders speak up in support of contraception and such; it's amazing the difference education and less stigmatization of necessary things can do) that I hope you rally for:

• Comprehensive sex education
• Affordable access to family planning
• Affordable access to birth control and contraception
• Affordable access to abortion
• Religious leaders speaking up in support of these things

[Htt71]

Nope. I'm not making their life decisions, I'm just the one saying that what they are doing (in my opinion) is wrong. I have all rights to say and believe this and power to those who agree. I have my beliefs and I'd much rather see them than the other party's (Otherwise why would I be here?) Also, I have all right to judge if it's responsible, or even just to judge! No, I can't carry a fetus inside of me, so I can't say I've been there done that, but I know for dang sure that if you are going to abort life for ( In SOME, keyword SOME, cases) no or little reason, there's something wrong. In cases of extreme conditions like life or death the grays only deepen... I can't control anyone but myself, but I'd love to at least get one person to say that I have some decent points. Because, let's be honest, if you had the choice between having abortion or not, if there were no risks what would you choose?

 

On the other topic, I'd love to see more about about half of this, what did you expect me to believe?

Edited January 9, 2014 by Htt71

[KageSora]

...Aren't there like, Bible verses against judging people, though?

 

And, if it were a case of risk-free pregnancy or abortion? Personally, I'd pick abortion anyway. Because I don't like nor want kids at all, and I would feel terrible putting a baby into the system where the child would have a pretty good chance of not getting adopted. Besides that, there'd be at least one or two conditions that could be potentially genetically passed on (or at least, a predisposition towards one or two) that I'd rather not end up potentially giving to an innocent child.

[Htt71]

Well... To an extent, but seriously people judged people all the time in the bible. There's a fricken book called judges after all!

 

Oh again, the lesser of two evils. A dead innocent child or a possible messed up one...

I'll take my chances thank you.

[7Deadly$ins]

Well... To an extent, but seriously people judged people all the time in the bible. There's a fricken book called judges after all!

 

Oh again, the lesser of two evils. A dead innocent child or a possible messed up one...

I'll take my chances thank you.

It isn't a child, though. It doesn't have nearly the same capacity. I still don't believe that an acorn is an oak tree, and a fetus isn't a child.

[Obscure_Trash]

Nope. I'm not making their life decisions, I'm just the one saying that what they are doing (in my opinion) is wrong.

But you're not just saying that...

 

I think the mother should be helped along the way in any way possible should she choose to have the baby, but if she chooses to abort the baby I believe she should be given that much and no more.

 

You're suggesting people who get abortions don't deserve support in any capacity and that's harmful.

 

I have all rights to say and believe this and power to those who agree. I have my beliefs and I'd much rather see them than the other party's (Otherwise why would I be here?)

 

See them what? I'm confused. o_O

 

Also, I have all right to judge if it's responsible, or even just to judge!

 

Just because you say it isn't responsible doesn't make it not responsible if someone makes that decision. You can think it isn't responsible but that doesn't mean it isn't.

 

No, I can't carry a fetus inside of me, so I can't say I've been there done that, but I know for dang sure that if you are going to abort life for ( In SOME, keyword SOME, cases) no or little reason, there's something wrong.

 

Okay, thought experiment. Why do you think pregnant people might want or get or need an abortion? Please, please, please put some thought into this before answering. Really try and think - give me at least one answer.

 

Whenever we talk about abortion, the anti-choice side always wants to talk about how irresponsible it is for women to have sex, for women to not keep their legs closed, for women to murder, for women to ruin a baby's[/b] fetus' life, for women to just go about selfishly murdering poor little babies. But not a one of them can sit down and actually tell me why someone might even consider an abortion. They think it's irresponsible because they've never really thought about it. So please, think about this and let's discuss.

 

In cases of extreme conditions like life or death the grays only deepen...

 

I know you said you were on your phone - is grays supposed to be graves here?

 

I'm not really sure what to make of this point. Yeah, when people die, there's death. ?

 

I can't control anyone but myself, but I'd love to at least get one person to say that I have some decent points. Because, let's be honest, if you had the choice between having abortion or not, if there were no risks what would you choose?

 

To abort. I would be a terrible parent, not to mention I in no way shape or form ever want to be pregnant. I would kill myself if I had to go through with pregnancy. I do not want to be pregnant, especially at this point in my life. There are risks associated with pregnancy, but that's by far not the only reason I never want to be pregnant.

 

Point being?

 

On the other topic, I'd love to see more about about half of this, what did you expect me to believe?

 

Wait, what other half? o_O

 

I don't expect you to believe anything. You're telling me you disagree with abortion. I gave you proven effective solutions to lowering abortion. To lower abortion rates, the list I gave you needs for us to support it and encourage the practice and access of those things.

[Syaoransbear]

I honestly think my opinions would be more accepted here if I were a woman, lol, just saying. It's fine if a woman wants to disagree with abortion, but heavens forbid a man tell any woman their opinion!

I will disagree with anyone who is against abortion because it's so important. Opinions aren't just opinions. They can manifest into laws that ban abortion and rip away my rights to my body. I won't have anyone, man or woman, taking away my rights.

 

But I will admit as a woman I really don't like it when a man tells me what I can and cannot do with my own body just because I'm a woman, especially when it's something that will ruin my life, permanently damage my body, and/or kill me. And to pour more salt in the wounds, men are the ones doing the impregnating. They can at least allow us to correct what they've done if we want to. That's like if you busted up my car then made it illegal for me to repair it. It's mean.

 

Philpot is male and I respect his opinion a lot even though I disagree with it because he's actually consistent about his views. He's concerned about preserving life and that's it. He doesn't waver in the inconsistent mess of "women should be allowed abortions in this scenario but not this scenario" where it's all about punishment and nothing about the fetus having equal or lesser value as an established human or women's rights to control their bodies.

Edited January 9, 2014 by Syaoransbear

[whitebaron]

But I will admit as a woman I really don't like it when a man tells me what I can and cannot do with my own body just because I'm a woman, especially when it's something that will ruin my life, permanently damage my body, and/or kill me. And to pour more salt in the wounds, men are the ones doing the impregnating.

1) It takes two to make a baby, and even though its the womans body, it's also the mans offspring. Be more responsible for the actions you, yourself take in the first place, no abortion is needed except for rare cases. (sabotaging birth control is a form of rape in my opinion...)

 

2) We are entitled to our own opinions, just as you are. Being Male or Female, Cis or Trans, should not have any impact whatsoever on opinions being there, valid or not.

[Lila]

1) It takes two to make a baby, and even though its the womans body, it's also the mans offspring. Be more responsible for the actions you, yourself take in the first place, no abortion is needed except for rare cases. (sabotaging birth control is a form of rape in my opinion...)

 

2) We are entitled to our own opinions, just as you are. Being Male or Female, Cis or Trans, should not have any impact whatsoever on opinions being there, valid or not.

The man's "offspring" is still not his property...

[Syaoransbear]

1) It takes two to make a baby, and even though its the womans body, it's also the mans offspring. Be more responsible for the actions you, yourself take in the first place, no abortion is needed except for rare cases. (sabotaging birth control is a form of rape in my opinion...)

 

2) We are entitled to our own opinions, just as you are. Being Male or Female, Cis or Trans, should not have any impact whatsoever on opinions being there, valid or not.

1. Yes it does take two. But the man still impregnates the female. And I would have more options for being 'responsible' if sterilization was an option for younger women. But personally I believe having an abortion is being responsible.

 

2. Where did I state men weren't entitled to their opinions? I believe I merely said they pissed me off since their opinions turn into votes which can take my rights away and not theirs.

 

And once again, your punishment viewpoint shows. "Be more responsible for the actions you, yourself take in the first place" how is that not punishment/consequence based thinking?

[Obscure_Trash]

1) It takes two to make a baby, and even though its the womans body, it's also the mans offspring. Be more responsible for the actions you, yourself take in the first place, no abortion is needed except for rare cases. (sabotaging birth control is a form of rape in my opinion...)

 

2) We are entitled to our own opinions, just as you are. Being Male or Female, Cis or Trans, should not have any impact whatsoever on opinions being there, valid or not.

Your comments don't really make sense to me based on the post you quoted. Syaoransbear basically already covered that stuff, but arrived at a pro-choice stance, whereas you did not(?).

[whitebaron]

Your comments don't really make sense to me based on the post you quoted. Syaoransbear basically already covered that stuff, but arrived at a pro-choice stance, whereas you did not(?).

Why don't they make sense to you?

Syaoransbear effectively stated that men are the only ones guilty if there is a baby, which is absolutely not true.

And to pour more salt in the wounds, men are the ones doing the impregnating. They can at least allow us to correct what they've done if we want to.

 

Men are not alone responsible for what happens. Yes, there are (rare!) cases where only the man is responsible for the pregnancy, but most of the time it is not like that, as much as many women would like to make for that case.

 

 

 

As for the opinion stuff: Treating men in such discussions differently, or ignoring them altogether, is hard sexism. But its obviously ok, if its in that direction, and all the evil rage if its in the opposite direction.

[Fuzzbucket]

Why don't they make sense to you?

Syaoransbear effectively stated that men are the only ones guilty if there is a baby, which is absolutely not true.

 

 

Men are not alone responsible for what happens. Yes, there are (rare!) cases where only the man is responsible for the pregnancy, but most of the time it is not like that, as much as many women would like to make for that case.

 

 

 

As for the opinion stuff: Treating men in such discussions differently, or ignoring them altogether, is hard sexism. But its obviously ok, if its in that direction, and all the evil rage if its in the opposite direction.

Men ARE the ones who CAN walk away. And many do.

 

Women can't. They just have to go through with it or make the decision to abort. That does make a difference.

 

And you are - apparently deliberately - misinterpreting what syoransbear said.

 

Which was, simply:

And to pour more salt in the wounds, men are the ones doing the impregnating. They can at least allow us to correct what they've done if we want to.

 

Men are on the whole the ones trying to prevent women getting abortions, in that they make up most of the lawmakers, while apparently forgetting that - yes, "men are the ones doing the impregnating". It is all a woman's fault for being careless, not using contraception, not keeping her legs closed. Look at the press, at the internet, and the rest. NOWHERE do you see "abortion is wrong so men should stop having sex. It's all Abortion is wrong so WOMEN should keep their knickers on or one FORCED to carry to term. Even this thread has hints of that.

 

I am not enraged at men in general. I am enraged at a HUGE number of male lawmakers, newscasters (fox news, I'm looking at you) and some of the men in this thread (not you, until this last post !) who seem to think it's OK to slag off women for being s or irresponsible, while conveniently forgetting that they have to be involved for any pregnancy to have happened in the first place.

[Kith]

Because, let's be honest, if you had the choice between having abortion or not, if there were no risks what would you choose?

At this point in my life, I would choose to abort. We can't afford a child and my husband has a severe phobia of childcare, so we're doing what we can to prevent pregnancy; he's even been sterilized himself. So if it so happens that his surgery self-reverses and I end up pregnant, I'll need to terminate and then see if we can afford to get my tubes tied (hopefully by then I'll be "old enough" to the doctors).

 

You certainly have as much right to your opinion as I have to mine, and we are equally free to disagree with one another. I don't think you're a horrible person or anything, I just disagree with you on some things.

 

I do have a question, though: where would your vote go? If you would vote to make abortions illegal, that could be seen as you wanting not just your opinion, but control over what other people do regardless of the pregnant person's own judgment. This is the part that people find most wrong and get the angriest about, since the choice camp wants people to be free to make their own decisions about their circumstances - neither forcing abortion nor birth on anyone.

[Sirikith]

On the subject of birthcontrol and other methods:

 

I've just found out that if bc doesn't give my sister migranes it causes her to have other mental issues.

 

Meaning likely hood I'll be able to handle hormonal birth control of any kind has been lowered yet again e.e.

 

Really I had decent sex ed (if I compare to the abstinince only and scare tactics education) but the non-hormonal methods I've had to read up on, which is nessicary if I want to remain in good health.

 

Also the rythem method wouldn't work, as soon as I am around other menstrating people I get messed up, my body can't handle starting at the same time as someone else (basically my body fights 'sincing').

I'm not sure where you come from, and if that method of contraception is available in your country, but there's Gynefix-a copper shackle that prevents implantion and kills sperm by ionization, which is easier to implant that the normal 7-shaped contraceptive coils, and less likely to increase menstruational cramps like the normal ones do.

This is due to its shape and makes it more suitable for young women who have not birthed already-you need not to widen the cervix as much to get it into the uterus, it holds by a knot which is pierced with some kind of needle into the muscular layer of the uterus, and it doesn't press against the uterine walls.

maybe that could be a hormone-less, but nevertheless reliable, method of contraception for you?

 

I'm taking into consideration to get one, es well as an endometrial ablation (which is, burning away the inner part of the uterus, where the embryo implants) as to be safe from pregnancy ever and to subdue my periods without taking hormones till I'm 50...

[Brite]

At this point in my life, I would choose to abort. We can't afford a child and my husband has a severe phobia of childcare, so we're doing what we can to prevent pregnancy; he's even been sterilized himself. So if it so happens that his surgery self-reverses and I end up pregnant, I'll need to terminate and then see if we can afford to get my tubes tied (hopefully by then I'll be "old enough" to the doctors).

 

 

 

I'm glad you respect it. Some spouses (yes even women) will sabotage him/her into getting a pregnancy, whether it'd be tampering birth control (faking BC pills, poking holes in condoms), or actually "raping" the spouse after drugging them. I've seen cases like that.

 

 

I'm not sure where you come from, and if that method of contraception is available in your country, but there's Gynefix-a copper shackle that prevents implantion and kills sperm by ionization, which is easier to implant that the normal 7-shaped contraceptive coils, and less likely to increase menstruational cramps like the normal ones do.

Where is this and why haven't I gotten my hands on it yet???

[brairtrainer]

I'm not sure where you come from, and if that method of contraception is available in your country, but there's Gynefix-a copper shackle that prevents implantion and kills sperm by ionization, which is easier to implant that the normal 7-shaped contraceptive coils, and less likely to increase menstruational cramps like the normal ones do.

This is due to its shape and makes it more suitable for young women who have not birthed already-you need not to widen the cervix as much to get it into the uterus, it holds by a knot which is pierced with some kind of needle into the muscular layer of the uterus, and it doesn't press against the uterine walls.

maybe that could be a hormone-less, but nevertheless reliable, method of contraception for you?

 

I'm taking into consideration to get one, es well as an endometrial ablation (which is, burning away the inner part of the uterus, where the embryo implants) as to be safe from pregnancy ever and to subdue my periods without taking hormones till I'm 50...

I am going to have to look into this O.O (the one doctor I went to who first told me an iud might work also told me she didn't want to give me one unless I tried hormonal patch bc (which last I checked was still having problems according to the FDA >.>) because I hadn't had kids. Thanks for the info!

[HeatherMarie]

actually, thats a myth. Unless you have a condition that prevents sex with everyone, theres no such thing - after all, even very tiny women can give birth - and thats a lot bigger than even "very big" men.

Actually, that's not a myth. I personally know someone who was engaged to a guy, never had sex with him, and when they finally got there she was bleeding before he got half-way in. And they *were* being slow and gentle with lots of lube. She specifically told me she could feel the tearing at her entrance. So yes, people can indeed be physically incompatible sexually.

[Brite]

Actually, that's not a myth. I personally know someone who was engaged to a guy, never had sex with him, and when they finally got there she was bleeding before he got half-way in. And they *were* being slow and gentle with lots of lube. She specifically told me she could feel the tearing at her entrance. So yes, people can indeed be physically incompatible sexually.

I think it's more meant like "It's possible, but it's not going to be pleasant." Incapable of pleasure it seems, which is no different than not having it all together. I feel terrible for her.

[Kith]

Childbirth can tear the tissues, which is definitely not a pain one wishes to associate with sexual activity. In addition, a baby coming out with the cervix completely open is not really comparable to something coming in when the cervix is closed. Vaginas can indeed be "shallow" in this way and not be able to handle a partner longer than that, especially if hitting the cervix is painful.

 

And of course there is the opposite problem where there may not be enough there to feel much of anything even when fully inserted, so I count that as an incompatibility as well.

 

In short, there are all shapes and sizes, but they are not all compatible in a pleasurable way.

[edwardelricfreak]

Well... To an extent, but seriously people judged people all the time in the bible. There's a fricken book called judges after all!

Sure, but then they were heathens. WE are not supposed to be the ones judging, but God himself. (or whichever god of another religion, etc) Besides, who are we to judge others? We're only imperfect humans ourselves. We're not mightier than any other person, no matter how "immoral" or not they are. Morals are man-made, which means they, too, are imperfect and ever-changing. I guess you could judge someone privately, but not act upon it.

 

You can't tell someone that their choice for what they do in THEIR life is wrong. You can advise them against it, by saying you feel it is wrong, and educate them about both choices in an unbiased manner, but you cannot tell them their choice is wrong. You need to let them live their life. Evenifitmeanstheydrankthemagicpotionthatkilledthem.

 

You can continue to judge others as immoral, or good, or just whatever. But I'm telling you it's not meant for us to be the ones judging. I may not believe in a god, but I still believe that to be true.

 

I don't think it's immoral for someone to get an abortion. Morals about it are the greyest area, just like you said in another post, with the life and death situation. But abortions don't happen when the baby can survive outside the mother. They happen relatively early, before even the halfway point in the pregnancy (14 weeks is 3 and a half months, a whole month before the halfway point). You're not killing a baby or child, you're aborting a fetus, which isn't the same thing. For it to be a baby, it has to be born first. It's a newborn. The term child can be used from when it is born up to the point of it being 18 years old (or whatever the legal adult age is), but child still doesn't apply to a fetus, because it's not born yet.

 

Sperm and ova are what make up a child. If it's not okay to abort a fetus, which isn't even human yet (I think at 2-3 months it finally starts to look like a baby, but otherwise it's still quite similar to other animals, even. Have you seen the embryos of different animals? Embryos are the stage before fetus, generally), then it shouldn't be okay for a woman to have a period or for men to ejaculate (voluntarily or otherwise, such as with nocturnal emissions). All of the sperm and the ova wasted in such a manner are killing potential children. And with the sperm, it is MILLIONS of potential children, messed up or not.

 

I'm just saying, if it's not okay to abort that one potential "child", then all of those other potential "children" should be saved at all costs, too.

 

And as KageSora said, we should worry about quality of life, too. In my opinion, probably related to the fact that I'm an artist, I strongly value quality over quantity. I'd rather have one really good thing than a bunch of not good things. I'm overall happier with the really good thing than a bunch of stuff that just isn't good, especially in the long run.

[whitebaron]

Actually, that's not a myth. I personally know someone who was engaged to a guy, never had sex with him, and when they finally got there she was bleeding before he got half-way in. And they *were* being slow and gentle with lots of lube. She specifically told me she could feel the tearing at her entrance. So yes, people can indeed be physically incompatible sexually.

anecdotal evidence is no evidence at all. It is perfectly possible to rupture or tear a woman that's larger than the man, as well. It has to do with technique and experience a lot more than the actual size difference. I do agree though, that it is not always possibly to "bury the dagger to the hilt" - there the male should show some decency.

 

Your case would most likely need some external help, as clearly they did not know what they were doing wrong. Counselling in that matter, however, is highly taboo in our society, so one just likes to assume that it was some "incompatibility" instead. Just to analyze further: fear is a very good sexual deterrent. If they were aware of the size difference and it was discussed upfront etc, this only increased the likelyhood of difficulties.

 

@Kith: I have yet to see the case were time and experience could not solve most of those problems. PC muscle training especially for those who have trouble with a tiny man meeting a big woman. .

[whitebaron]

But abortions don't happen when the baby can survive outside the mother. They happen relatively early, before even the halfway point in the pregnancy (14 weeks is 3 and a half months, a whole month before the halfway point).

extra post to chime in:

that's actually very wrong. a pregnancy lasts 40 weeks, not 36, so 14 weeks (or as in some countries, 12 weeks) is 1/3rd and below.

 

however, at 12-14 weeks the child is "complete" but not self-sustainable. All the big developments have been done by then, it just needs to grow further.

Edited January 9, 2014 by whitebaron

[edwardelricfreak]

Pregnancies are 9 months. Recently I've heard stuff about "oh no it's actually 10 months" but I'm pretty sure it's still 9 months, which is 36 weeks. Though to be fair I think it's more like "whenever the baby thinks it's ready and wants to be born".

 

Also I don't understand your point as the abortion point is STILL before the halfway mark, which was my point. If pregnancy somehow got longer, then it's still before the halfway point, and if it's 12 weeks in some countries, again, it's still before the halfway point.

Edited January 9, 2014 by edwardelricfreak

[Shienvien]

Anecdotal evidence is no evidence at all.

What does count as evidence, then? I have heard the same from actual gynaecologists - the incompatibility-part. And why are you comparing sex to childbirth? Childbirth is seldom anything pleasurable, is usually extremely painful and always bloody, often results in ruptures, etc. As already pointed out, during childbirth the cervix dilates, which makes the situation entirely different. And, in the matter of fact, some very small women indeed cannot give natural birth. Giving birth naturally would literally rip them open and have them bleed to death.