Abortion?

This forum made possible through the generous support of SDN members, donors, and sponsors. Thank you.
Post removed

Members don't see this ad.
 
abortive therapy.. is that what their "calling" it these days eh?
 
I have followed this thread with great interest. I just felt like I had to write something.

I was born in the country that first legalized abortion (can anyone guess where that is?). We have very few pro-lifers here, and the ones we have are just plain weird.

It's obvious that the pro-lifers in this thread are intelligent people. Personally, I have never questioned the morality of abortions. I have never been presented with the question of whether it was morally wrong.

I have performed 4 or 5 abortions in my time as a medical student. Am I a murderer to you, then?

For the 17-year old girl who had her whole life in front of her, I felt an abortion was a good choice.

For the 30-something single career woman, who had obviously changed her mind more than once, I wasn't so sure.

I'll admit that every time we labeled the clump of tisue and sent if off to pathology I imagined that this "person" could have lived a long life instead of this.

In the end it all comes down to beliefs. And you can't argue with beliefs.
 
Members don't see this ad :)
BellKicker said:
I have followed this thread with great interest. I just felt like I had to write something.

I was born in the country that first legalized abortion (can anyone guess where that is?). We have very few pro-lifers here, and the ones we have are just plain weird.

It's obvious that the pro-lifers in this thread are intelligent people.
I assume, given my recent activity in this thread, I'm included in this. Thank you.
I have performed 4 or 5 abortions in my time as a medical student. Am I a murderer to you, then?
I think you're trying to bait me into calling you a highly charged, universally reprehensible epithet before revealing your wonderful good-hearted nature. You're going to have to try harder.
For the 17-year old girl who had her whole life in front of her, I felt an abortion was a good choice.

For the 30-something single career woman, who had obviously changed her mind more than once, I wasn't so sure.

I'll admit that every time we labeled the clump of tisue and sent if off to pathology I imagined that this "person" could have lived a long life instead of this.
How does that train of thought typically end? "Enh, oh well, time to clean up and get a cup of coffee"?

In the end it all comes down to beliefs. And you can't argue with beliefs.
I agree. You can, however, dispute the validity of their underpinnings.
 
BellKicker said:
I have followed this thread with great interest. I just felt like I had to write something.

I was born in the country that first legalized abortion (can anyone guess where that is?). We have very few pro-lifers here, and the ones we have are just plain weird.


Was it the Netherlands?
 
BellKicker said:
I have followed this thread with great interest. I just felt like I had to write something.

I was born in the country that first legalized abortion (can anyone guess where that is?). We have very few pro-lifers here, and the ones we have are just plain weird.

.

Iceland...I thought it was Nazi Germany but when I looked it up low and behold, performing abortions in France under Facism was a death penalty offense, I thought that was interesting...makes you go hmmmmmm



Well, grats on your abortion experience, maybe you could run as a Democratic Presidential candidate, can you perform abortions, smoke weed and NOT inhale all at the same time??
 
If we did a poll of pro-life and pro-choice individuals (in the US). What group favors the death penalty? My money's on the pro-lifers.

How bout a poll of pro-life and pro-choice individuals. What group favors the "right to bear arms"? My money is on the pro-lifers.

How bout a poll of pro-life and pro-choice individuals. What group favors the republican party? My money's on the pro-lifers.

Political ideology confused with morality. I'm positive there are exceptions, but if the above polls conclude the way I suggest, then I will never understand these people. It also shows the ever widening rift forming between the people in this country. It is a shame.

Sorry to interrupt
 
PBEA said:
If we did a poll of pro-life and pro-choice individuals (in the US). What group favors the death penalty? My money's on the pro-lifers.

How bout a poll of pro-life and pro-choice individuals. What group favors the "right to bear arms"? My money is on the pro-lifers.

How bout a poll of pro-life and pro-choice individuals. What group favors the republican party? My money's on the pro-lifers.

Political ideology confused with morality. I'm positive there are exceptions, but if the above polls conclude the way I suggest, then I will never understand these people. It also shows the ever widening rift forming between the people in this country. It is a shame.

Sorry to interrupt
Unless you can dig up a source somewhere, all three of those are completely blind speculation--plus they're completely irrelevant, whether accurate or not. This isn't about capital punishment, this isn't about gun control, and this isn't about political party affiliation. I don't know what you intended to prove with any of these.

And what do you mean, "political ideology confused with morality"? What else do you think people build their political perspectives on? The latter nearly always dictates the former, and that applies to everyone, not just the folks you're trying to so blithely write off as nutjobs.
 
PBEA said:
If we did a poll of pro-life and pro-choice individuals (in the US). What group favors the death penalty? My money's on the pro-lifers.
Yep, as a blanket statement you're correct.

It confounds me how the GOP can be anti-abortion but pro-capital punishement. To them I guess It's all in the timing!!!!
 
fuegorama said:
Yep, as a blanket statement you're correct.

It confounds me how the GOP can be anti-abortion but pro-capital punishement. To them I guess It's all in the timing!!!!
1) There's no such thing as a correct blanket statement.

2) Capital punishment is a red herring, with no impact whatsoever on the issue at hand (abortion, in case anyone forgets from all the attempts being made to distract it.)
 
aphistis said:
1) There's no such thing as a correct blanket statement..)
wrong-
If we try to describe a group of individuals with similar identifying traits (e.g. they vote for republicans)as sticking to certain issues as their reason for this identification we are making a "blanket statement" about these people. The person I was quoting described a fairly accepted platform of the Right as it stands in its present incarnation. His statement then is correct.

aphistis said:
2) Capital punishment is a red herring, with no impact whatsoever on the issue at hand (abortion, in case anyone forgets from all the attempts being made to distract it.)
Capital punishment and abortion share too much to ignore. They both result from poverty. (the number of abortions has risen over the past four years as the economy goes in the pooper, capital punishment is the end for those economically disenfranchised folks that can't afford representation.)

There is no attempt at distraction. People like yourself, who rale about the evils of abortion, simultaneously support candidates that destroy the flimsy social safety net that should be preventing the desperation that leads to violent crime.

These same candidates crow for "abstinence only" and no reproductive health teaching in schools. If you want to see an abortion in the making, just tell that gym full of sixteen year olds to "just say no".

[edit..I wasn't finished]
It is the two-faced lack of logic that pi$$es me off about the Right. "Less government but we will tell you what to do with that uterus. Don't terminate that baby, but we won't assist with its education, feeding, social identity, and don't make us think about healthcare. That 15 year old shot somebody trying to knock over a store? Try him as an adult then kill his ungrateful a$$. Without us he would've been aborted".
 
Members don't see this ad :)
fuegorama said:
wrong-
If we try to describe a group of individuals with similar identifying traits (e.g. they vote for republicans)as sticking to certain issues as their reason for this identification we are making a "blanket statement" about these people. The person I was quoting described a fairly accepted platform of the Right as it stands in its present incarnation. His statement then is correct.


Capital punishment and abortion share too much to ignore. They both result from poverty. (the number of abortions has risen over the past four years as the economy goes in the pooper, capital punishment is the end for those economically disenfranchised folks that can't afford representation.)

There is no attempt at distraction. People like yourself, who rale about the evils of abortion, simultaneously support candidates that destroy the flimsy social safety net that should be preventing the desperation that leads to violent crime.

These same candidates crow for "abstinence only" and no reproductive health teaching in schools. If you want to see an abortion in the making, just tell that gym full of sixteen year olds to "just say no".

[edit..I wasn't finished]
It is the two-faced lack of logic that pi$$es me off about the Right. "Less government but we will tell you what to do with that uterus. Don't terminate that baby, but we won't assist with it's education, feeding, social identity, and don't make us think about healthcare. That 15 year old shot somebody trying to knock over a store? Try him as an adult then kill his ungrateful a$$. Without us he would've been aborted".
OK, you're apparently not interested in keeping this focused to one topic, and I'm not interested in turning it into a no-holds-barred political firefight. I'm not going to try discussing with someone who evidently holds that stereotyping and distraction are viable debate tactics. G'night.
 
aphistis said:
OK, you're apparently not interested in keeping this focused to one topic, and I'm not interested in turning it into a no-holds-barred political firefight. I'm not going to try discussing with someone who evidently holds that stereotyping and distraction are viable debate tactics. G'night.
Probably for the best. Rather than try to change your mind I reckon I might as well do something realistic and productive.

Now where is that perpetual motion gadget I was working on? ;)
 
fuegorama said:
Probably for the best. Rather than try to change your mind I reckon I might as well do something realistic and productive.

Now where is that perpetual motion gadget I was working on? ;)



How many people in this country are actually on death row?
What sorts of crimes have they commited to put them there?
How long have they been on death row before they actually recieved their sentence.

now compare that with...

How many women actually recieve abortions in this country each year?
How many of those abortions were performed because it was a life or death situation where the doctor had to decide who to save, the mother or the child?
What crimes did these children commit to put them in this situation?

You haven't even given them a chance...

Now if you want to discuss Euthenasia.. that is still a competly different topic than abortion, but maybe something you could relate to more.

:rolleyes:
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 user
fuegorama said:
It's all in the timing!!!!

Yep.. just like the abortion supporters timeing between an 9th month old feotus and a 1 day old baby.

I guess that makes all the difference.. :cool:
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 user
Now if you want to discuss Euthenasia.. that is still a completly different topic than abortion, but maybe something you could relate to more.

I was going to ask about a poll for Euthenasia also, but it didn't mesh with my, what was is it Aphistis?, stereotyping? Stereotyping of what part? pro-lifers? Sorry you didn't read my disclaimer. I stated that I was POSITIVE there are exceptions.

Anyway, OzDDS, I think Euthanasia can be a part of this discussion. Euthanasia is not always by choice as you know. How about miscarriages? What if a miscarriage results from negligent behavior by the mother?
What if a miscarriage results from negligent behavior by the father?
Is this a criminal offense?
Imagine that, mother (and/or father) does crack, baby dies in womb from drug induced side effects, mother(and/or father) convicted and sentenced to death penalty. It's a harsh world we live in for sure.

:rolleyes:[/QUOTE]
 
PBEA said:
What if a miscarriage results from negligent behavior by the mother?
What if a miscarriage results from negligent behavior by the father?
Is this a criminal offense?
Imagine that, mother (and/or father) does crack, baby dies in womb from drug induced side effects, mother(and/or father) convicted and sentenced to death penalty.

Well as things are currently, I believe a man can cause his 3 month pregnant wife some roughing up and if the baby dies, he can be sent to jail for murder. If his wife killed their child herself at the same time, then she is simply exercising her freedoms as a woman in the United States.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 user
aphistis said:
Unless you can dig up a source somewhere, all three of those are completely blind speculation--plus they're completely irrelevant, whether accurate or not. This isn't about capital punishment, this isn't about gun control, and this isn't about political party affiliation. I don't know what you intended to prove with any of these.

And what do you mean, "political ideology confused with morality"? What else do you think people build their political perspectives on? The latter nearly always dictates the former, and that applies to everyone, not just the folks you're trying to so blithely write off as nutjobs.

You are partially correct, speculation yes, blind no (I'm 20/20, but I don't take good enough care of my teeth). They are all relevent, and I did not call anyone a nutjob! I HAPPEN TO BE THE EXCEPTION TO MOST OF THESE POLLS. GET IT? I am, however, pro-choice.

You are right political perspectives built around morality, problem is the exact definition of morality. Also, politics do a poor job of reflecting said unclear morality. If I kill someone, I probably get the death sentence, right? Eye for an eye, is that it, I mean it's murder, Aphistis. Look I kind of favor eye for an eye, but the point is I accept the philosophical dilemma it poses. I also accept the dilemma faced with abortion.

sleep time
 
OzDDS said:
Well as things are currently, I believe a man can cause his 3 month pregnant wife some roughing up and if the baby dies, he can be sent to jail for murder. If his wife killed their child herself at the same time, then she is simply exercising her freedoms as a woman in the United States.


Some interesting links..

http://www.bbc.co.uk/religion/ethics/abortion/legal_father1.shtml
http://www.bbc.co.uk/religion/ethics/abortion/legal_father2.shtml

http://www.dadsrights.com/ed10.html
http://www.townhall.com/columnists/Armstrongwilliams/aw20020814.shtml
http://www.tinyvital.com/BlogArchives/000336.html


Any thoughts?
 
OzDDS said:
Well as things are currently, I believe a man can cause his 3 month pregnant wife some roughing up and if the baby dies, he can be sent to jail for murder. If his wife killed their child herself at the same time, then she is simply exercising her freedoms as a woman in the United States.

As far as murder of a pregant woman counting as double homicide--I think that's a state by state designation (meaning that only in some states can death of a fetus count as a homicide).

Personally, it doesn't bother me at all for murder of a woman at 9 months gestation to be considered double homicide while abortion (even late-term abortion) is not. One's intentions do play a role in charges related to homicide (i.e. voluntary/involuntary manslaughter vs. 1st/2nd degree murder), and I believe a pregnant woman has the right to choose to terminate her pregenancy. Her abusive partner does not have the right to make that decision for her against her will.
 
What if he is not abusive.. what if the father of the child wants to be a loving parent, but the mother wants an abortion.
 
OzDDS said:
Yep.. just like the abortion supporters timeing between an 9th month old feotus and a 1 day old baby.
Surprisingly, you're right. For those of us that do/will provide abortions, it is the timing.
At a minimum, a FETUS can barely make it outside the uterus at ~23 weeks. Then it is totally dependent on heroic ressucitation and intensive care.
Prior to this point, it is a part of the mother incapable of extrauterine life.
The timing here is everything.
 
you know.. a 2 month old child is completly dependant and without full time assistance would probably die too. hmm
 
OzDDS said:
What if he is not abusive.. what if the father of the child wants to be a loving parent, but the mother wants an abortion.

From your avatar, I guess you're a dentist. Maybe this isn't taught in your program, but males cannot carry babies. It's her body, not his.
If a woman does not want to have a child with a certain man, he does not have the right to demand she carry it to term.

Now back to that female anatomy and pregnancy thing. OzDDs, when a man and a woman feel a mutual attraction and they lie down very close together......(I can give you more details if you need them)
 
  • Dislike
Reactions: 1 user
OzDDS said:
you know.. a 2 month old child is completly dependant and without full time assistance would probably die too. hmm
Nope.
The two month old is capable of respiration, suckling, has an independent cardiovascular system and can nourish/eliminate without being physiologically dependent on its mother's uterus. hmmm.
 
fuegorama said:
males cannot carry babies. It's her body, not his.

It is her body, but she is also carrying his child too!

fuegorama said:
If a woman does not want to have a child with a certain man, he does not have the right to demand she carry it to term.

Don't call it pro-choice then.. call it what it is.. pro-women's choice.
I can't wait till the male pill comes out. That way men will finally truely have control of their lives again!! And not have women either pregnant and telling the father that they are going to kill his child and he can't do a damn thing about it.. or that the mother is preg when he doesn't want a child and then she is going to proceed to demand he hand over his paycheck to her for the rest of his life and running him into either jail or life on the streets as a bum.
:cool:

kelleyhjk.jpg
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 user
Wow-
Quite an enlightened view of women ya got there.
Women either kill men's babies, or they rope them into marriage/support for their paycheck.

Are you longing for the good ol' 1890s when these uppity broads knew their place?
 
No.. not all women are like that. BUT you say you want equality and freedom of choice.. right! Well.. So do I!
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 user
OzDDS said:
I can't wait till the male pill comes out. That way men will finally truely have control of their lives again!! And not have women either pregnant and telling the father that they are going to kill his child and he can't do a damn thing about it


good news--no need for you to wait for that male pill! last I checked there was this nifty thing called a condom that allows a man to have control over whether he fathers any children or not.
 
Last time I checked.. there were lots of illegitimate kids running around there were the result of a faulty condom.

There needs to be something better than that..
 
This means that women have power and control over men's reproductive rights.

Men need a greater range of options of birth control methods/options available to them.
 
fuegorama said:
Nope.
The two month old is capable of respiration, suckling, has an independent cardiovascular system and can nourish/eliminate without being physiologically dependent on its mother's uterus. hmmm.

Suckle what? Is a 2 month old capable of running after cows and wrestling them into suckle position?

Just because the umbilicus is no longer connected does not mean the infant is independent. If the parents don't care for the child, the child dies. The main difference is that the mother is not the only person capable of providing support. if she's unwilling or unable, somebody else can substitute.
 
MoosePilot said:
The main difference is that the mother is not the only person capable of providing support. if she's unwilling or unable, somebody else can substitute.
Yeah lets try that before 23 weeks.
 
OzDDS said:
It is her body, but she is also carrying his child too!



Don't call it pro-choice then.. call it what it is.. pro-women's choice.
I can't wait till the male pill comes out. That way men will finally truely have control of their lives again!! And not have women either pregnant and telling the father that they are going to kill his child and he can't do a damn thing about it.. or that the mother is preg when he doesn't want a child and then she is going to proceed to demand he hand over his paycheck to her for the rest of his life and running him into either jail or life on the streets as a bum.
:cool:

kelleyhjk.jpg

Well yes, then call it pro-women's choice if that makes you feel better. I'm fine with that, because it is the woman's choice. Just to add another scenario...what about all the men who get their partner's pregnant because a condom just doesn't feel good, and they promise they'll be around forever but then they bail before the baby is even born? THAT'S why it should always ultimately be the women's choice. It would be nice if we could have both parties sign some kind of pre-sex agreement indicating exactly what birth control, if any, will be used and what exactly will happen if pregnancy occurs. If a man is truly that concerned about his partner having an abortion in the case of an unwanted pregancy, then he should make the decision not to have sex with that woman because as we all know, no birth control is 100% effective 100% of the time.

Incidentally, I completely agree with you (for once :)) that we need more birth control options for men. Condoms and spermicides are the only options for men and they are not that effective. Unfortunately, I don't think many men (perhaps the majority) will every take equal responsibility for contraception. I wouldn't trust me husband to take a pill at the same time every single day for the rest of his life to prevent pregnancy, and I can kind of understand it, too, because it isn't him that's getting pregnant. He's not the one bleeding from his crotch and feeling down right icky every month to remind himself about his fertility. While I believe in theory contraception responsibilty should be 50/50, it will always fall a little more to the female because it is her body that will be going through the nausea, weight gain, hormonal changes, breastfeeding, etc.

Ultimately, we need EVERYONE, MEN and WOMEN to be more concerned and responsible about birth control whatever the actually responsibility split comes down to (and I think that very much depends on the dynamics of one's own relationship). Let's decrease the need for abortion in the first place.
 
pillowhead said:
Just to add another scenario...what about all the men who get their partner's pregnant because a condom just doesn't feel good, and they promise they'll be around forever but then they bail before the baby is even born?

Also.. what about all those women who tell their man they are on the pill when they really aren't ...or if they are they are, they are not regular with taking it... and tell their man that it is ok to go without a condom. Then **** happens and they get pregnant. Look.. I know people who have gone through this before. It is not as uncommon as you may think.

It goes both ways.. Women can be just as manipulative as men.. if not more so sometimes.

pillowhead said:
If a man is truly that concerned about his partner having an abortion in the case of an unwanted pregancy, then he should make the decision not to have sex with that woman because as we all know, no birth control is 100% effective 100% of the time.

It is not as simple as that.. I wish it were. First of all, it takes two to make a baby.. and also you can't force abstinence as the only way. not a realistic option.


pillowhead said:
Incidentally, I completely agree with you (for once :)) that we need more birth control options for men. Condoms and spermicides are the only options for men and they are not that effective


Ultimately, we need EVERYONE, MEN and WOMEN to be more concerned and responsible about birth control


Let's decrease the need for abortion in the first place.


:thumbup: Yes!! Sounds good to me! :thumbup:
 
OzDDS said:
Also.. what about all those women who tell their man they are on the pill when they really aren't ...or if they are they are, they are not regular with taking it... and tell their man that it is ok to go without a condom. Then **** happens and they get pregnant. Look.. I know people who have gone through this before. It is not as uncommon as you may think.

It goes both ways.. Women can be just as manipulative as men.. if not more so sometimes.

It is not as simple as that.. I wish it were. First of all, it takes two to make a baby.. and also you can't force abstinence as the only way. not a realistic option.

:thumbup: Yes!! Sounds good to me! :thumbup:

Yes, I know you cannot force abstinence. I also know that birth control is never 100% which is why I support a woman's right to choose abortion. I'm not trying to force abstinence on anyone, *unlike most individuals in government devising our sex education curriculums). All I'm saying is that if the two sexual partners cannot come to agreement on how to deal with an unwanted pregnancy, then perhaps they should rethink having sex and postpone it to a later date--say marriage? A man can't get upset with a woman who has already told her partner that she will have an abortion is she gets pregnant, and then he has sex with her anyway. Just as a woman cannot get mad at a man if he makes it abundantly clear that their sexual relationship is limited to a one night stand, and he has no intention of being around in the morning. That's why couples need to talk about sex before they do it and be educated! But when all teenagers are allowed to hear is "Abstinence good! Pre-marital sex bad!" we will never come close to reaching a goal of an educated populace regarding sex.

As an aside, please do not think I don't realize women are not just as manipulative as men. Trust me, I'm pretty cynical :) and definitely believe both sexes behave equally bad (and can also be equally responsible for birth control).
 
pillowhead said:
Yes, I know you cannot force abstinence. I also know that birth control is never 100% which is why I support a woman's right to choose abortion. I'm not trying to force abstinence on anyone, *unlike most individuals in government devising our sex education curriculums). All I'm saying is that if the two sexual partners cannot come to agreement on how to deal with an unwanted pregnancy, then perhaps they should rethink having sex and postpone it to a later date--say marriage? A man can't get upset with a woman who has already told her partner that she will have an abortion is she gets pregnant, and then he has sex with her anyway. Just as a woman cannot get mad at a man if he makes it abundantly clear that their sexual relationship is limited to a one night stand, and he has no intention of being around in the morning. That's why couples need to talk about sex before they do it and be educated! But when all teenagers are allowed to hear is "Abstinence good! Pre-marital sex bad!" we will never come close to reaching a goal of an educated populace regarding sex.

As an aside, please do not think I don't realize women are not just as manipulative as men. Trust me, I'm pretty cynical :) and definitely believe both sexes behave equally bad (and can also be equally responsible for birth control).


agreed :thumbup:
 
Just to throw a little more gas on this, I'm noticing all this talk about how horrible a thing it is to "force abstinence" on people. Nobody's forcing anything.

I'll double-check my copies of the Constitution & Declaration of Independence, but I'm pretty sure there's nothing in either about the right to unlimited, consequence-free sex. Just like anything else in life, you pays your money & you takes your chances.
 
When the only option you are telling people about is abstinence (I'm thinking about the high school sex ed programs in the US that only support abstinence), then yes, you are 'forcing' abstinence on them. Even more so when you tell them that nothing else 'works'. My sisters caught one of those presentations, and the general feeling from the other kids after was 'If nothing works, why bother with anything at all?'

So rather than scaring people into doing what (you might think) is 'right', why not educate and let them go from there. Most of us agree that the status quo isn't working.... so what other options do we have?

Hmmm. Free sex isn't covered under the constitution? What's your point? That it?s a crap shoot with or without birth control? Maybe that?s true, to an extent. But I?d rather hedge my bets just the same. And have my choices open to me if something goes wrong. And I think that freedom is (somewhat) covered by your constitution.
 
electric said:
When the only option you are telling people about is abstinence (I'm thinking about the high school sex ed programs in the US that only support abstinence), then yes, you are 'forcing' abstinence on them. Even more so when you tell them that nothing else 'works'. My sisters caught one of those presentations, and the general feeling from the other kids after was 'If nothing works, why bother with anything at all?'

So rather than scaring people into doing what (you might think) is 'right', why not educate and let them go from there. Most of us agree that the status quo isn't working.... so what other options do we have?

Hmmm. Free sex isn't covered under the constitution? What's your point? That it?s a crap shoot with or without birth control? Maybe that?s true, to an extent. But I?d rather hedge my bets just the same. And have my choices open to me if something goes wrong. And I think that freedom is (somewhat) covered by your constitution.

Well said, I could not agree more. :thumbup:
 
aphistis said:
Just to throw a little more gas on this, I'm noticing all this talk about how horrible a thing it is to "force abstinence" on people. Nobody's forcing anything.

I'll double-check my copies of the Constitution & Declaration of Independence, but I'm pretty sure there's nothing in either about the right to unlimited, consequence-free sex. Just like anything else in life, you pays your money & you takes your chances.

What do you tell your 17-18yo son who just got his girlfriend pregnant?...."..you pays your money & you takes your chances"?
That is an excellent philosophy (thick sarcasm)

You should probably stop trying to "interpret" the US Constitution or DOI because you are doing a terrible job of it. Fact is, they are a loose framework, and DO NOT define exactly, the current structure of our society.

P.S. tell your son, that if he is going to have sex (despite your objections) with his girlfriend, then he must at ALL times wear a condom. For his sake, not yours.
 
electric said:
When the only option you are telling people about is abstinence (I'm thinking about the high school sex ed programs in the US that only support abstinence), then yes, you are 'forcing' abstinence on them. Even more so when you tell them that nothing else 'works'. My sisters caught one of those presentations, and the general feeling from the other kids after was 'If nothing works, why bother with anything at all?'

So rather than scaring people into doing what (you might think) is 'right', why not educate and let them go from there. Most of us agree that the status quo isn't working.... so what other options do we have?

I'm not interested in misleading people, I only want them to have the information they need to make an intelligent decision. If these kids don't want, or lack the capability, to become parents, the intelligent decision then becomes "don't have kids." If that means not having sex, that's what it means. Once again, nature has already decided that consequence-free sex isn't a birthright, and it doesn't give two rats about what these people think they're entitled to.

Hmmm. Free sex isn't covered under the constitution? What's your point? That it?s a crap shoot with or without birth control? Maybe that?s true, to an extent. But I?d rather hedge my bets just the same. And have my choices open to me if something goes wrong. And I think that freedom is (somewhat) covered by your constitution.

My point is that while consequence-free sex isn't mentioned in any of our founding documents, life *is*.
 
PBEA said:
What do you tell your 17-18yo son who just got his girlfriend pregnant?...."..you pays your money & you takes your chances"?
That is an excellent philosophy (thick sarcasm)

No, I emphasize it well before he's old enough to be sleeping with his girlfriend. I furthermore make very clear that while I hold no illusions about my ability to stop him from having sex, if he chooses to play those odds and ends up losing, he'd better start making plans to support his child.

You should probably stop trying to "interpret" the US Constitution or DOI because you are doing a terrible job of it. Fact is, they are a loose framework, and DO NOT define exactly, the current structure of our society.

Would you kindly show me where I interpreted anything? My comment was a simple statement of fact: "the right to free sex isn't included in either document." Are you contending it is?
 
aphistis, i hardly think of an unwanted pregnancy, followed by an abortion as "consequence-free" sex, which seems to be what you are claiming.

as you mentioned life, when do you feel life begins? and is this timing the major rationale behind your beliefs?
 
neilc said:
aphistis, i hardly think of an unwanted pregnancy, followed by an abortion as "consequence-free" sex, which seems to be what you are claiming.

as you mentioned life, when do you feel life begins? and is this timing the major rationale behind your beliefs?

I, too, get frustrated by people who think that all these women are willy-nilly getting pregnant because they think "well, it's just so easy and cheap to get an abortion! It's just like I can have sex like crazy and their are no consequences!" (Disclaimer--I realize that there are a few women who do have several abortions and don't ever use birth control. I think there are much larger issues going on with these women, and I am not willing to deny the right to abortion to any woman because a few can't get it together to use birth control in the first place.)

Stop arguing that there's no right to consequence free sex in the constitution because obviously no one thinks there is. Having an abortion is a consequence of sex for some people; it's not that easy. I mean, even if a woman and her partner are completely okay with the idea emotionally and mentally, at the very least, it's a surgical procedure (the abortion pill is still rarely used relative to surgical abortion) with risks which will leave the woman feeling at least physically exhausted, perhap nauseated, etc, and down several hundred dollars.
 
I always wondered in all the abortions that are sent to pathology, who pays for that? Is that covered as part of the cost of the procedure? Is there a market for becoming a specialized abortion pathologist I wonder?

Kinda like mini-autopsies really, find feet, check, find hands, check, find head....crap where is the head!....okay, head in 4 pieces, nose missing, check.

Sounds interesting.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 user
I am shocked at the amount of misinformation on this thread. A first trimester abortion involves a thumbnail sized piece of tissue at the most - there is no pain function, there is no screaming. How outrageously false. Myelination of nerves and true nerve function comes much much later in the gestational development. Even a full term baby cannot scream until it takes a breath - something an 8 week old embryo could never do. There is no question that there is a difference between a 3 year old baby needing adult supervision to survive long term and an 8 week old embryo not ever being alive and not ever being close to surviving in an environment that is not completely inside the organ of another.

40% of women of childbearing age in the United States have had an abortion. Are they all murderers? Do you propose we put almost half of all women in prison for life or send them to the electric chair? Abortion is the single most common surgery in America - can that really be realistically murder in the eyes of most people? No, it's not. Unfortunately, extremists dominate the conversation, as happened here.

Countries that restrict abortions do not decrease their number at all. They just end up with a high maternal mortality rate. 30% or more of maternal mortality in these countries is due to lack of safe abortion. Women die on the floor of hospitals, writhing in pain, because someone thinks an ectopic pregnancy and her death by hemorrhage is somehow moral.

Read the Lancet issue from last year dedicated to maternal health worldwide for a medical perspective on this:

http://www.thelancet.com/journals/lancet/issue?issue_key=S0140-6736(07)X6043-4
 
:beat:

:beat:

:beat:

Bringing back a thread from 2004? c'mon....
 
Top