Jump to content
Bear

Abortion

Recommended Posts

Honestly, the only way I could be okay with this is if they were legally required to not cover 100% of all kinds of contraception or procedures relating to that for both females AND for males if they wanted to not cover something or be forced to cover everything (since then there could be absolutely no bias, it'd be all or nothing), and would legally be forced to cover it if a doctor was able to provide documentation that the BC was required for a reason aside from pregnancy prevention (since, y'know, some types are done for other medical reasons and all).

 

But, since that's clearly not how this works, I cannot think of this as anything but the most recent attempt to allow religion to be used to control or abuse people who don't follow the faith of another. There's been far too much of that of late. :/

Share this post


Link to post

*brushes off dust*

 

My BF's little brother is having the "purity pledge" program in school this week for freshman-juniors. After getting a good look at the ridiculous "virginity rings" they're passing out, I nearly wanting to march to that school and let them have it. I really wish I would've wrote a stern statement to them when I was still in school. I looked at his pamphlet he got from the program too.

 

I feel ill looking at it. I've forgotten how bad of liars these guys are, they're acting like sex is an unnatural repulsive thing, (Apparently It destroys lives, can kill you, make a wh*re out of girls.) and it says that contraceptions are basically duds that don't protect at all. But apparently, as soon as you say "I do", it's the best thing in the world that you should do every day. It makes me so ill and p***ed..

Share this post


Link to post
*brushes off dust*

 

My BF's little brother is having the "purity pledge" program in school this week for freshman-juniors. After getting a good look at the ridiculous "virginity rings" they're passing out, I nearly wanting to march to that school and let them have it. I really wish I would've wrote a stern statement to them when I was still in school. I looked at his pamphlet he got from the program too.

 

I feel ill looking at it. I've forgotten how bad of liars these guys are, they're acting like sex is an unnatural repulsive thing, (Apparently It destroys lives, can kill you, make a wh*re out of girls.) and it says that contraceptions are basically duds that don't protect at all. But apparently, as soon as you say "I do", it's the best thing in the world that you should do every day. It makes me so ill and p***ed..

I'm reminded of the movie "Teeth"... :U

 

Haha, I like the scare tactics they're trying to use. c:

Share this post


Link to post
I feel ill looking at it. I've forgotten how bad of liars these guys are, they're acting like sex is an unnatural repulsive thing, (Apparently It destroys lives, can kill you, make a wh*re out of girls.) and it says that contraceptions are basically duds that don't protect at all. But apparently, as soon as you say "I do", it's the best thing in the world that you should do every day. It makes me so ill and p***ed..

It's just awesome, before or after.

Share this post


Link to post
It's just awesome, before or after.

"But but but, you can get an STD!! You can get someone pregnant and have to pay horrible child support and never get a descent job in your life ever because you're a teen father. But she could've been much younger than you and now you'll go to jail because its statutory rape!!"

 

 

You know, after reading the "options" on the back of it concerning pregnancy, I didn't see "abortion". Well I did, but all it said was "kill the baby".

Share this post


Link to post

The thing is, though, sex CAN potentially have consequences.

 

If you aren't mature enough to deal with that fact, then maybe you SHOULDN'T be having it.

Share this post


Link to post
The thing is, though, sex CAN potentially have consequences.

 

If you aren't mature enough to deal with that fact, then maybe you SHOULDN'T be having it.

True, but if you're mature enough to take all precautions, then what's stoping you?

Share this post


Link to post

Well, for me personally, there are a number of things.

 

For one, the religion I was brought up with teaches that sex should be saved for marriage ( BTW... I believe that goes for guys as well as gals, before you ask. Yes, I also know that it isn't always enforced that way. Truth is that guys DON'T become pregnant, so the potential consequences to them are less... and if they don't live up to what they should it is often less obvious. Not saying this is fair necessarly. Men should be 'pure' too, if women are expected to be, IMO.)and that has influenced my viewpoint somewhat. I know and understand that not everyone believes that, but the possible consequences of sex (pregnancy, the possibility of disease, emotional consequences and ect) make abstinence seem like a good choice to me. That is my personal choice, frankly. For another, I am not terribly INTERESTED in having sex, to be honest. I may be asexual or something, I don't know, but it just was never a thing I felt any urge to do.

 

Again, I know that others feel differently.

 

It does seem like the media often portray sex to young people as something people just do for the fun of it, without much regard to the possible consequences at all. I don't see any harm in young people being informed of the possible consequences of their actions.

Edited by Silverswift

Share this post


Link to post

Don't forget that many MANY adult - even married - women need - and get when they can - abortions too. I hate the way it is portrayed so often as a "evil teenagers have sex, BAD BAD BAD teenagers - abortion should be banned so that they Learn Their Lesson."

 

Half of the roughly 1.2 million U.S. women who have abortions each year are 25 or older. Only about 17 percent are teens. About 60 percent have given birth to least one child prior to getting an abortion.

 

source

Share this post


Link to post
Don't forget that many MANY adult - even married - women need - and get when they can - abortions too. I hate the way it is portrayed so often as a "evil teenagers have sex, BAD BAD BAD teenagers - abortion should be banned so that they Learn Their Lesson."

 

 

 

source

AND I do understand that as well, Fuzz, that it isn't just young people. My only point was that there are PLENTY of reasons a person might choose NOT to have sex ( or an abortion either, for that matter). Just as there are many reasons a person might give for having either.

Share this post


Link to post
make abstinence seem like a good choice to me.
I will point out that I know and have met plenty of people who have gotten divorces solely because they didn't try before marriage, and only later found out they are, well, "physically incompatible". These things can and do completely ruin relationships, and if the people have gotten married before they discover it, it can be a whole lot of extra hassle. For some people, the physical side of relationship is extremely important. Edited by Shienvien

Share this post


Link to post
Well, for me personally, there are a number of things.

 

For one, the religion I was brought up with teaches that sex should be saved for marriage ( BTW... I believe that goes for guys as well as gals, before you ask. Yes, I also know that it isn't always enforced that way. Truth is that guys DON'T become pregnant, so the potential consequences to them are less... and if they don't live up to what they should it is often less obvious. Not saying this is fair necessarly. Men should be 'pure' too, if women are expected to be, IMO.)and that has influenced my viewpoint somewhat. I know and understand that not everyone believes that, but the possible consequences of sex (pregnancy, the possibility of disease, emotional consequences and ect) make abstinence seem like a good choice to me. That is my personal choice, frankly. For another, I am not terribly INTERESTED in having sex, to be honest. I may be asexual or something, I don't know, but it just was never a thing I felt any urge to do.

 

Again, I know that others feel differently.

 

It does seem like the media often portray sex to young people as something people just do for the fun of it, without much regard to the possible consequences at all. I don't see any harm in young people being informed of the possible consequences of their actions.

That's fine for you. In fact, those who wish to be abstinent are fine; I have nothing against them. c: Seriously that's fine, though hopefully you won't have "incompatibility" issues. D: (or anyone else who wishes to be abstinent)

 

I do agree that it's important that people (including teenagers but NOT limited to them!) should learn the consequences of their actions, ESPECIALLY for unprotected sex, BUT sex should *not* be treated as something evil or bad, because it's not.

Edited by edwardelricfreak

Share this post


Link to post

Yes, sex can have negative consequences. But you don't use scare tactics to tell people about them (while conveniently ignoring the positive potential benefits, mind you). You explain them to them in a rational, educational manner. Explain the actual risks and rates of contraction for various STDs/STIs, explain the success and failure rates for the various forms of protection (and yes, cover abstinence). Explain the possible complications of pregnancy, of birth, of abortion, of adoption. Explain things like costs of raising a child--including children with mental and/or physical disabilities, not just the "minimum cost" for a healthy child.

 

Present this information from valid sources--not scare tactics or religious propaganda or anti-choice lies (a LOT of the information passed around as "accurate" in the pro-forced-birth circles is actually proven BS--my favorite being the picture of the "fetus removed with a rusty knife" that's actually Voldemort's soul from the last Harry Potter movie).

 

If there's a religious component for the "reasons to not have sex" (I dislike the use of "pure" because it implies that sex is impure somehow, which it's not) feel free to explain that--not just "because the Bible says so" but what the Bible says and reason it out, but don't force it on everybody regardless of faith.

 

 

Proper education can be an excellent way to decrease not only rates of pregnancy and abortion, but of people having sex in general if they're more inclined to think about the ramifications--good and bad--of their actions. And if they chose to embrace their natural urges instead of waiting (neither being inherently better or worse--it's what's best for you as a person that matters) then they'll be able to minimalize negative risks.

Share this post


Link to post

I do agree that it's important that people (including teenagers but NOT limited to them!) should learn the consequences of their actions, ESPECIALLY for unprotected sex, BUT sex should *not* be treated as something evil or bad, because it's not.

Most definitely. AND I also agree with Kage Sora that scare tactics are NOT the way to go.

 

Giving people the actual FACTS. Like. some the examples they mentioned, for example... rates of contraction for STDs, the failure rates of various forms of BC and how to use them... would be better. Who knows; It might even prevent an abortion or two. wink.gif

 

AND as to sex being inherently 'evil' or 'bad'... that is a complicated mess as far as some religious folks are concerned.

 

I wasn't taught to view it as evil per se... just potentially dangerous.

 

Admittedly, attitudes toward this are complicated for religious folks, and I am not denying that. It is a very powerful natural urge that can very easily lead a person into bad relationships/situations. The way I have heard it described is... like fire. Good, useful and even pleasant in its proper place, but it can cause a whole lot of hurt if it isn't controlled. I have the idea that is the rational behind what GhostChili was describing... though I could be wrong. Bear in mind that not all religious folks hold the same views on it, either. Some may genuinely believe that it is INHERENTLY evil, but certainly not all. would add here that if you are talking about Christians... and that is the religion I am most familiar with... the Bible never actually SAYS that sex is, in and of itself, evil... the impression I get is that it can be misused, but it isn't evil in itself. Just thought I'd point that out. In fact, If you believe the account of creation in Genesis ( Not all do, mind you and that is a subject way, WAY off topic here); it reports that God created the world, man and woman and said it was very good... he also told the man and his wife to be fruitful and multiply... which strongly suggests that God created sex, if that happens to be your belief. A bit off topic, I know, but... Sorry, but I thought I'd put that out there.

Edited by Silverswift

Share this post


Link to post

Going by that analogy, fire is also dangerous, but most people who plan to go camping and start campfires first do extensive research on how to do it, the potential risks involved, and how to minimize those risks. As a result very few of them are burned - it's the ones who rush in and randomly hold their lighters up to things who get in those accidents. Heck, everything is potentially dangerous. Oxygen is potentially dangerous. Existing is definitely 100% dangerous. But I think we can also agree that there are some definite upsides to existing, so why should we give up because there's a risk involved when we can do our best to minimize dangers and enjoy life instead? The problem is that lots of people who engage in sex don't really understand sex and the education system is a large part of the reason for that. So we basically have the equivalent of lighter-toting teenagers running amok and people trying to solve this problem by banning burn cream.

 

And all of this is coming from an asexual person, so it's not like I have any vested interest in being allowed to have unprotected sex all day every day. I just genuinely don't understand the pro-life viewpoint.

Edited by Fractional Pi Day

Share this post


Link to post
Going by that analogy, fire is also dangerous, but most people who plan to go camping and start campfires first do extensive research on how to do it, the potential risks involved, and how to minimize those risks. As a result very few of them are burned - it's the ones who rush in and randomly hold their lighters up to things who get in those accidents. Heck, everything is potentially dangerous. Oxygen is potentially dangerous. Existing is definitely 100% dangerous. But I think we can also agree that there are some definite upsides to existing, so why should we give up because there's a risk involved when we can do our best to minimize dangers and enjoy life instead? The problem is that lots of people who engage in sex don't really understand sex and the education system is a large part of the reason for that. So we basically have the equivalent of lighter-toting teenagers running amok and people trying to solve this problem by banning burn cream.

 

And all of this is coming from an asexual person, so it's not like I have any vested interest in being allowed to have unprotected sex all day every day. I just genuinely don't understand the pro-life viewpoint.

Pretty much this. ANYTHING can have it's risks. And just because there's risks, does that mean we shouldn't do it? If not, the over 90% of our activity would cease to exist. So bringing up the "risks" are obsolete. Pro-birthers also like to weave lies into those risks. My favorite light is the breast cancer one, and here's a new one, sucking out your uterus.

Share this post


Link to post

Pretty much this. ANYTHING can have it's risks. And just because there's risks, does that mean we shouldn't do it? If not, the over 90% of our activity would cease to exist. So bringing up the "risks" are obsolete. Pro-birthers also like to weave lies into those risks. My favorite light is the breast cancer one, and here's a new one, sucking out your uterus.

It is true that most things have risks to them.

I agree with FPD , though, that a LOT of people don't really UNDERSTAND the risks related to this when they probably SHOULD. I'll admit that I don't think i have heard of the second one you mentioned before. Assuming that the doctor performing an abortion REALLY messed it up, is that even POSSIBLE?

Edited by Silverswift

Share this post


Link to post

I don't understand the pro-life standpoint. If somebody wants an abortion and it's serious enough, they'll find a way to get it. Banning abortions simply means that you're removing a safe way of doing so and setting us back to coat hangers and the 1960's.

Share this post


Link to post
I don't understand the pro-life standpoint. If somebody wants an abortion and it's serious enough, they'll find a way to get it. Banning abortions simply means that you're removing a safe way of doing so and setting us back to coat hangers and the 1960's.

Pro-birthers actually WANT that. They want a woman to suffer for even going down the route of attempting an abortion.

Share this post


Link to post
Pro-birthers actually WANT that. They want a woman to suffer for even going down the route of attempting an abortion.

No, we don't desire for "women to suffer." That's absurd. We just don't want people to have legal access to murder. If what we say about abortion is true, "preventing" women from aborting children is exactly the same as "preventing" people from committing any other sort of homicide, or rather infanticide.

Share this post


Link to post

(Let me preface this by saying I am pro-choice, not because I would likely make that choice myself, but because I feel that I have no business telling another woman what she should do with her body. I don't live anyone else's life, so I can't know what they're going through that would make them make that choice for themselves. I also apologize if this is disjointed - it's late, and I'm trying to get the flurry of thoughts written down in as coherent a manner as possible, but sometimes I just can't keep up.)

 

Actually, abortion rates are -lower- in the countries where the service is readily available, safe, and legal. Then again, those countries also have comprehensive sex education programs in place to help prevent unwanted pregnancies in the first place.

 

But until Americans get over the 'taboo' of sex in our culture, we're still going to have closed-mined people teaching abstinence-only in certain schools and segments of the country, which does nothing to help those who veer from it to know how to properly protect themselves.

 

Shall we start making women abide by a list in determining if they should be allowed to have sex or not, because of the possibility of becoming pregnant?

It's a natural activity. Why do some people see pregnancy as punishment for having natural urges, and for some of the holier-than-thou, take delight in feeling superior than those who don't follow their ideals? Last I checked, no one has to live by anyone else's ideals.

 

Too poor? Nope.

Sex out of wedlock? Nuh uh.

Any risk of prophylaxis failing? No sex for you.

Take any kind of medication that you need to live or that stabilizes mood that can affect a fetus? Nope, you get off those meds that keep you from killing yourself, and sacrifice your literal sanity.

 

To simply say 'well, if she didn't want to get pregnant, she shouldn't have sex' is ridiculously unrealistic. By that logic, women who never want to have children should never be able to have sex, because they might get knocked up. Unless you expect them to have a hysterectomy or get their tubes tied to placate your ideals - something that, last I checked, the vast majority of doctors won't perform unless you've already had one child; yet another glaring injustice against women who desire to make decisions about, and have control over, their own bodies.

 

And what of those who do everything in their power short of sterilization to prevent pregnancy, but become so despite being responsible about their choice? Or those who know that bringing a child into the world in their current circumstances wouldn't be a good thing? Yes, adoption is an option for some, but pregnancy is an expensive, physically and emotionally taxing thing. Many women simply can't afford to take the time needed, and that's forgoing the possibility of C-section, which has a far greater recovery time than natural birth.

 

Despite what many pro-life people would have you believe (and yes, often pro-birth, since many of those same people who oppose abortion also oppose giving women the help and services they need to support the child they want to force them to carry to begin with), for many women it is an agonizing decision - yes, there are a few irresponsible women who use it as birth control, but for the vast majority it isn't a decision to be taken lightly. It's not a fun thing to go through. The imagery of women cheerfully going to have their uterus sucked out is, by and large, a fallacy.

 

And don't get me started on those that picket Planned Parenthood and harass anyone who attempts to step through their doors. Women who are pregnant where the fetus isn't viable, or would have an extremely short, painful existence have to endure the vitriol spewed by those people in a time when they're already heartbroken and devastated.

 

Did you know that the vast majority of services offered by PP aren't even related to abortion? Many people use it for affordable healthcare, cancer screening, birth control, pregnancy checkups... the list goes on. In fact, abortion accounts for, on average, between 2% and 5% of total services rendered. These statistics are freely available online, in the PDF of the annual report they have to send the government. It isn't the abortion factory that the pro-lifers claim it to be by a long shot. So when these people are calling for them to be defunded and shut down, they're really trying to force an organization that helps low-income people stay healthy, educates the public on safer sex practices, and actively helps prevent unwanted pregnancies in the first place, to close its doors. How is that helping prevent abortion?

 

In my opinion, until the fetus is viable (with or without medical intervention), it is not officially a person, and as such it should and must be a woman's choice what she can and can't do with her body, and who uses it. Perhaps all abortion is murder to you, but to me, the thing being murdered has to first be a viable person. Everyone has a right to have bodily autonomy - why should a woman be forced to forfeit hers to something that hasn't even been born yet? When the rights of a fetus trump those of the woman carrying it, you're reducing that woman to the status of incubator, and she ceases to be nothing more than the potential being she happens to carry.

Edited by Omega Entity

Share this post


Link to post

No, we don't desire for "women to suffer." That's absurd. We just don't want people to have legal access to murder. If what we say about abortion is true, "preventing" women from aborting children is exactly the same as "preventing" people from committing any other sort of homicide, or rather infanticide.

Pro-birthers. Not pro-lifers. I've personally SEEN people post things like "make them go back to back ally, if she dies, she deserves it! I hope she stabs herself in the process and painfully suffers!"

Edited by GhostChilli

Share this post


Link to post

Um, overpopulation isn't a myth. Just look at places like China and India.

If I'm not mistaken, China is a communist country and people there are only allowed one child per household. India has many places that aren't over populated. People choose to live in such densely populated areas. I personally would never EVER have an abortion. I have a two month old daughter and the though of not having her or someone choosing to end such a small, defenseless, beautiful life nearly brings tears to my eyes. I don't believe its a matter of choice so much as it is whether its legal to end a life.

Share this post


Link to post

Overpopulation is, indeed, an issue, especially considering how the population is increasing exponentially versus the finite resources of the planet.

 

In other words, living space isn't the issue, materials to support the population are.

Share this post


Link to post

To simply say 'well, if she didn't want to get pregnant, she shouldn't have sex' is ridiculously unrealistic. By that logic, women who never want to have children should never be able to have sex, because they might get knocked up. Unless you expect them to have a hysterectomy or get their tubes tied to placate your ideals - something that, last I checked, the vast majority of doctors won't perform unless you've already had one child; yet another glaring injustice against women who desire to make decisions about, and have control over, their own bodies.

 

And what of those who do everything in their power short of sterilization to prevent pregnancy, but become so despite being responsible about their choice? Or those who know that bringing a child into the world in their current circumstances wouldn't be a good thing? Yes, adoption is an option for some, but pregnancy is an expensive, physically and emotionally taxing thing. Many women simply can't afford to take the time needed, and that's forgoing the possibility of C-section, which has a far greater recovery time than natural birth.

 

Despite what many pro-life people would have you believe (and yes, often pro-birth, since many of those same people who oppose abortion also oppose giving women the help and services they need to support the child they want to force them to carry to begin with), for many women it is an agonizing decision - yes, there are a few irresponsible women who use it as birth control, but for the vast majority it isn't a decision to be taken lightly. It's not a fun thing to go through. The imagery of women cheerfully going to have their uterus sucked out is, by and large, a fallacy.

 

And don't get me started on those that picket Planned Parenthood and harass anyone who attempts to step through their doors. Women who are pregnant where the fetus isn't viable, or would have an extremely short, painful existence have to endure the vitriol spewed by those people in a time when they're already heartbroken and devastated.

 

Did you know that the vast majority of services offered by PP aren't even related to abortion? Many people use it for affordable healthcare, cancer screening, birth control, pregnancy checkups... the list goes on. In fact, abortion accounts for, on average, between 2% and 5% of total services rendered. These statistics are freely available online, in the PDF of the annual report they have to send the government.  It isn't the abortion factory that the pro-lifers claim it to be by a long shot. So when these people are calling for them to be defunded and shut down, they're really trying to force an organization that helps low-income people stay healthy, educates the public on safer sex practices, and actively helps prevent unwanted pregnancies in the first place, to close its doors. How is that helping prevent abortion?

 

In my opinion, until the fetus is viable (with or without medical intervention), it is not officially a person, and as such it should and must be a woman's choice what she can and can't do with her body, and who uses it. Perhaps all abortion is murder to you, but to me, the thing being murdered has to first be a viable person. Everyone has a right to have bodily autonomy - why should a woman be forced to forfeit hers to something that hasn't even been born yet? When the rights of a fetus trump those of the woman carrying it, you're reducing that woman to the status of incubator, and she ceases to be nothing more than the potential being she happens to carry.

There are many, many ways to prevent pregnancy. I'm not saying any woman that doesn't want to get pregnant shouldn't have sex (although it is A 100% effective contraceptive), I am saying that once there could be a person there, it deserves the right to grow, like everything else. As women, we need to take into account the fact that we are the keepers of all Human life. There is not one person on the face of this earth that didn't come from a woman (unless there's a human clone I'm not aware of). If she got pregnant, she didn't do everything in her power. Preventing pregnancy is rather simple.

 

I would definitely donate to a planned parenthood facility if they were just helping and educating. I don't oppose offering aid at all. If a woman can't afford to carry a child on her own, there are many, many families that can't have children that would gladly help a woman financially, with food, doctors visits and anything else she may need. You can't use the excuse that they don't have access to things like that because everybody knows at least one person with a computer or knows where a library is and knows how to use Google. If you looked at all, you could find at least person/organization that would know how she could find a family that would help and take the baby afterwards. There are many churches that would help if they knew of the need. I personally would help anyone I knew that couldn't afford doctors appointments or anything else.

Share this post


Link to post

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.