# Legal restriction of abortion doesn't change the rate



## shesulsa (Oct 15, 2007)

I've been saying this for years.

Those of you who've been members here back to '04 who have read my opinions on abortion laws know that this is a big bone of contention for me.  You've read my writings of my opinion that abortions have been happening since females have been getting pregnant and will continue to happen for as long as females will be getting pregnant regardless of legality.

Well, folks ... Gilda Sedgh has gathered data on abortions in Africa, America, Asia and Europe and guess what??  



> The legal status of abortion has never dissuaded women and couples, who, for whatever reason, seek to end pregnancy, Beth Fredrick of the International Womens Health Coalition in the U.S. said in an accompanying commentary.
> 
> *Maternal mortality
> *Abortion accounts for 13 percent of maternal mortality worldwide. About 70,000 women die every year from unsafe abortions. An additional 5 million women suffer permanent or temporary injury.
> ...



Read for yourselves.


----------



## Cruentus (Oct 15, 2007)

I am morally against abortion, but I agree with your point on this, Shesulsa. That, and my fairly libritarian views when it comes to civil liberties makes it impossible for me to support making abortion illegal.

The problem is that the data you present won't disuade the hard core "right to lifers." The reason is ironic in a way, but my take on it is that they basically feel that if someone dies from a decision to "kill a baby" (as they believe that is what abortion is) then so be it. I think that they would rather have the consequences for abortion to be severe. 

So to them, the data you present is a plus, in a demented sort of way. 

Just helping you get into their heads....

C.


----------



## shesulsa (Oct 15, 2007)

I want to be clear - I'm not a huge fan of abortion either.  

What I cannot morally ignore this particular issue - that females - COUPLES even - around the world are unified in their desire to control their reproductive lives.  As long as we know how to control reproduction and fail to provide information regarding effective contraception and try to deny that we are copulous beings and pretend that saying "no" is the panacea for all STDs and unwanted pregnancies, we will have millions of unwanted or risky pregnancies.

Let's look at that statistic for just a moment ...  millions.  Of children.  Unwanted.  Unhealthy (most likely).  

Let's all - regardless of our feelings about abortion - drink that in for a moment.  There is not a photograph of one million children - I doubt it could be done.  

What would the impact be??  How many of them would contract disease? How many would be abused or murdered after birth?  How many would starve? How many would be shuffled through an inefficient - nay, broken - system into the resulting life of accepted poverty, potential crime and drug use?

Just some thoughts to consider.  And I *really* hope we can all talk about this rationally.  It is such an emotionally charged issue.  There is an article by the Lancet about minimizing the need for abortion but I think it's for paid subscription viewing only - will see what I can do about that.


----------



## Kacey (Oct 15, 2007)

This doesn't surprise me at all.  Many things have been outlawed over the years that are - or should be - moral rather than legal issues, and the rate at which the activities have occurred does not change unless and until the _societal_ attitude changes, rather than legal strictures.

With abortion in particular, the moral component is tied up with religious and cultural attitudes; religions object to abortion on moral grounds, because of religious injunctions to "be fruitful and multiply", as well as strictures against murder, and in religions with beliefs in the evolution of the soul, abortion is considered to prevent such evolution.  Cultural attitudes can vary widely, and are often tied in with religious objections; in addition to those, cultures which value the birth of one gender over the other (generally boys over girls) have a much higher rate of abortion for the other gender, regardless of existing laws (religious or otherwise).  

Poverty in developing countries also leads to abortion - as difficult as abortions are to afford from some very poor families, the children who have already survived infancy must be fed so they can provide for their parents' old age - but contraception is seen as infringing on a man's manhood - a strong, masculine man engenders many children, and contraception prevents that; abortion, on the other hand, does not reflect on a man's ability to sire children.

Other cultural and religious attitudes also affect abortion rates, regardless of the legality of abortion in that area, as can be seen by some of the comments here:



> Most devout Hindus object to the practice of abortion. Although you will not find them in Pro-life marches (reproduction is a private issue), they do not practice abortion unless the mother's health is threatened and all other avenues have been explored.
> The following excerpt is taken from a book on Hinduism called Dancing With Siva written by Satguru Sivaya Subramuniyaswami, a member of the Parliament of the World's Religions and a leading authority on contemporary Hinduism:  abortion: The deliberate termination of pregnancy. From the earliest times, Hindu tradition and scriptures condemn the practice, except when the mother's life is in danger. It is considered an act against rita and ahimsa. Hindu mysticism teaches that the fetus is a living, conscious person, needing and deserving protection (a Rig Vedic hymn [7.36.9, RvP, 2469] begs for protection of fetuses). The Kaushitaki Upanishad (3.1 UpR, 774) describes abortion as equivalent to killing one's parents.
> 
> <snip>
> ...


Judaism, in contrast, has always allowed abortion if the life of the mother was in danger - although "allowed" and "encouraged" are two different things; "be fruitful and multiply" applies to Jews as well as Christians - but remember, as you read this, that these laws were written at a time (4000 years ago) when an infant that survived birth without a mother would likely die, but a mother who survived childbirth with a dead infant could potentially have more children - and given the infant mortality rate at the time, a live adult was worth more, culturally, than a live infant - in addition, the fetus was considered to be part of the mother's body until the head was fully extruded during birth, rather than a separate entity; at least, that's the way it was explained to me by a rabbi some years ago in an adult education course I took at the synagogue I belonged to at the time.  Here is some of the interpretation of Talmudic discussion about this issue:



> To begin to make his case, Feldman points out that there is no Commandment reading "Thou shalt not kill": rather, the Commandment reads "Thou shalt not murder." In Judaism (and elsewhere, of course) killing in self-defense is allowed. There are a number of categories of allowable killing in self-defense - including the category "of _rodef_, the aggressor, who may be killed if that is the only way to stop his pursuit or aggression of a third party." The Talmud considers treating the fetus as a _rodef_ - specifically, "an aggressor against its mother, and making that the reason why abortion to save the mother's life is permitted." Butthe Talmud proceeds to reject that reasoning on the obvious grounds that   the fetus is not yet of responsible age to deliberately forfeit its protection   against being murdered [i.e., by consciously choosing to act as an aggressor,   and thereby loosing its protection against killing]. The only valid grounds   for permitting even therapeutic abortion is that murder is not involved because   the fetus is not yet a human person [ftn. 1: _Sanhedrin_ 72b: David   Feldman _Birth Control in Jewish Law_ (New York: New York University   Press, 1968), chaps. 14 and 15.] Killing is admittedly involved, but not   murder. Killing is the taking of life of, say, an animal or a chicken, or   of a human who forfeits his protection by an act of aggression. (81)
> <snip>
> the abortion question in talmudic law revolves around the legal status of   the embryo. For this the Talmud has a phrase, _ubbar yerekh immo_, which   phrase is a counterpart of the Latin _pars viscerum matris_. That is,   the fetus is deemed "a part of its mother," rather than an independent entity.   This designation says nothing about the morality of abortion; rather, it   defines ownership, for example, in the case of an embryo found in a purchased   animal. As intrinsic to its mother's body, it belongs to the buyer. In the   religious conversion of a pregnant woman, her unborn child is automatically   included and requires no further ceremony. Nor does it have power of acquisition;   gifts made on its behalf are not binding. These and similar points mean only   that the fetus has no "juridical personality," but say nothing about the   right of abortion. This turns rather on whether feticide is or is not homicide.   (81-82)​


Other religions have different viewpoints, often based on the conditions at the time the religious laws were written - involving, to a large degree, cultural attitudes toward procreation and contraception.  Cultures that were more free about sexual activity tended, in general, to be more free about contraception as well - not always, but often.

Socioeconomic factors enter into this as well - if you cannot afford to raise a child, and contraception is forbidden or unavailable for whatever reason, abortion may be the only possible choice - or at least the only available one.  In the past, families had many children because they were needed to work, to support the family - and because disease and accident claimed so many before adulthood.  As that changes in developing countries, the population skyrockets - as it did in the US in the last century - until the cultural attitudes toward family size change, if they ever do.  And again, religious values about procreation continue to play a role here as well.

Now, don't get me wrong - I'm not a big fan of abortion, especially in cases where contraception is easily available and affordable, as I see a significant moral difference between _preventing_ conception and _ending_ conception once it has occurred.  

However, I do think that the decision about whether to continue or end a pregnancy should be up to the people personally involved - not to people who think it is _wrong_, no matter what, who talk women out of abortions, throw them a baby shower and then leave them on their own to raise unwanted children; I see too of those many kids where I teach middle school to believe that such actions are in the best interest of the child (or the parent, for that matter).  Either commit to raising the child(ren) whose abortion(s) you just prevented, or butt out - I find anything else to be morally irresponsible.


----------



## Cruentus (Oct 15, 2007)

shesulsa said:


> ILet's look at that statistic for just a moment ... millions. Of children. Unwanted. Unhealthy (most likely).
> 
> Let's all - regardless of our feelings about abortion - drink that in for a moment. There is not a photograph of one million children - I doubt it could be done.


 
I think that if we took any impoverished or unhealthy child and asked him if it would be O.K. to just kill him right now because his life is worthless, I don't think that child would be O.K. with that.

Obviously that is very figurative as no one here is going to do that and find out the results. But the point is, I think that if given the choice between living with problems or not living at all, I would think that in most cases, they would rather live.

So from my perspective, I am not about to defend abortion as a viable choice. *However, I do in fact realize that the choice is not mine to make.* And I think that is where people have difficulty in bagging their ego's and realizing that ultimatily, it is not your choice to make for other people. Even if you are able to make it illegal, the choice still falls in the hands of the mother.

So to me, I'd rather fight things like poverty and the lack of availability of birth control in 3rd world countires. If mothers have the ability to take care of children, and if birth control and education is available in countries that fight epidemics like aids and unwanted children, the mothers will be less likely to choose abortion.

To me, that is a real, pragmatic way to reduce abortion. I would rather advocate for that, rather then simply making abortion illegal, which as the data shows does not fundamentally work.


----------



## shesulsa (Oct 15, 2007)

Well, here's a talking point about abortion/pregnancy prevention and education.

Here, in the US of A, my daughter who attends public school is now in 9th grade.  She knows of 8 girls who have had abortions and goes to school with over 30 pregnant teens - at least 5 in her grade.  She goes to a high school known as "Grandma High."  She is a card-carrying member of the Abstinence Till Marriage club.  She has learned what HIV is, she has learned of two of the four bodily fluids which we currently believe to carry and transmit the virus, she knows how you get pregnant ... but believes (because this is what she was taught) that condoms don't work, that dental dams don't work, that latex protection are not effective in transmission of HIV, nor are they effective methods of birth control.

She also doesn't know what nonoxynol-9 is - not only the most effective OTC and safe-for-use spermicide on the market but the ONLY spermicide on the market known to kill the human immunodeficiency virus.

I only brought the AIDS factor in because barrier contraception also prevents AIDS and other STDs which HAVE to be taken into consideration in developing countries.

So is there, Cruentus, in your mind, any such thing as a "therapeutic abortion?" And if so, what in your opinion would conditions be mandated?


----------



## Cruentus (Oct 15, 2007)

shesulsa said:


> So is there, Cruentus, in your mind, any such thing as a "therapeutic abortion?" And if so, what in your opinion would conditions be mandated?


 
Yes, I think "therapeutic abortion," [as defined as an abortion because the mothers health is at risk or the fetus has a terminal illness] is definatily viable.

As far as conditions mandated? They shouldn't be mandated, in my opinion.

In other words, it's not for the government or medical community to mandate. As I said before, I think that ultimatily this is the decision that the mother has to make with her family. It's an especially tough one when the fetus has a terminal illness, or the mothers health/life is at risk. Because this decision is so tough and personal, I think that is at the very least unfair for the government or the medical community to make the decision for people in these circumstances. 

As to my personal belief regarding abortion, subjectivly my belief is that people have 'souls.' My personal subjective belief is that when an egg is fertalized, it becomes a being with a soul, of whom it is the mothers responsibility to protect, as that soul/baby is completely dependent on the mother. Even if I felt (which for the record, I don't) that I could support legislation based on a subjective spiritual belief that is not rooted in fact or science, how could I morally support legislating such a difficult, case specific, and subjective decision on another person? I personally just couldn't do it.

As to education and your daughters circumstance, I think that is too bad that teens in this era would buy into myth's like "condoms don't work" and so forth. That is the kind of thing that we really need to fight against.

C.


----------



## CuongNhuka (Oct 15, 2007)

I think that you should have to go infront of a judge, and if you can prove to his/her satsifaction that you should have an abortion, you can have an abortion. There are times where I think morally, it is wrong to make a woman carry a child to term, such as in incest, rape, a strung out mother, and so on. There are other times where it could be a bad idea, such as with a teen mother (obviously she shouldn't be having sex, but is it really worth probably ruining her life and her childs life?). 

Now, if you in your 20's, and simply decide that you 'aren't ready', well, too bad scooter.


----------



## michaeledward (Oct 15, 2007)

A couple of decades ago, for a short time, I lived with a woman who was a few years older than me. Earlier in her life, she had terminated a pregnancy. After that abortion, she was unable to conceive. 

In hindsight, when we were together she was pretty self-destructive, and I think the results of that terminated pregnancy were probably a significant contributor to her behaviors.

I believe these decisions are best dealt with by a woman, and her doctor.


----------



## Flying Crane (Oct 15, 2007)

shesulsa said:


> I want to be clear - I'm not a huge fan of abortion either.


 
I think this is a really important point.  Nobody WANTS abortions.  An abortion is a terrible thing, and the fewer the better, and with proper education, unwanted/accidental pregnancies should be avoided and not need to be terminated.

That being said, life ain't perfect and abortion should remain a safe option if necessary.  

I think sometimes the pro-life group tries to paint a picture of pro-choicers actually WANTING to have abortions.  Nothing could be further from the truth.  Nobody WANTS to go thru it.  But sometimes it's the best option under the circumstances.


----------



## Big Don (Oct 15, 2007)

Flying Crane said:


> I think this is a really important point.  Nobody WANTS abortions.


The founder of Planned Parenthood would disagree:
http://thinkexist.com/quotation/we-are-failing-to-segregate-morons-who-are/1190272.html
and


> Women of the working class, especially wage workers, should not have more than two children at most. The average working man can support no more and and the average working woman can take care of no more in decent fashion.


and
http://www.dianedew.com/sanger.htm

         The purpose in promoting birth control was "to create a race of         thoroughbreds," she wrote in the_ Birth Control Review_, Nov.         1921 (p. 2)
Other leaders of Planned Parenthood had similar views:
                "We are not going to be an organization promoting celibacy                 or chastity." Faye Wattleton, President,  Planned Parenthood Federation of America,                 _Los Angeles                 Times_, Oct. 17, 1986 
(celibacy and chastity being two 100% effective ways not to become a parent...)


----------



## Makalakumu (Oct 15, 2007)

Big Don said:


> The founder of Planned Parenthood would disagree:
> http://thinkexist.com/quotation/we-are-failing-to-segregate-morons-who-are/1190272.html
> and
> 
> ...


 
BD, looks like you posted a dirty little secret...Planned Parenthood started as a Eugenics program.

Not that I'm against people having abortions, I just find this little fact VERY interesting.


----------



## Flying Crane (Oct 15, 2007)

Big Don said:


> The founder of Planned Parenthood would disagree:
> http://thinkexist.com/quotation/we-are-failing-to-segregate-morons-who-are/1190272.html
> and
> 
> ...


 
ah, well, not knowing much about these details, I guess I ought to qualify my comment a bit.  Nobody who is reasonable wants abortions.  I suspect that few people today would actually take the position that they WANT to have abortions.  But of course the World does have its share of wack-jobs...


----------



## tellner (Oct 15, 2007)

So did a lot of people. But before you get out the Hitler brush to paint her and Planned Parenthood with remember a couple things. She was also arrested for giving birth control information to White Middle Class Protestant Americans. Eugenics was certainly part of her belief system at the beginning. It wasn't within a few years, and certainly not by the time that she died. The "Margaret Sanger and Hitler" crowd, on the other hand, have been telling distortions, slander and out and out lies about her from the word go and haven't stopped (e.g Operation Rescue, National Right to Life, Life Dynamics, etc.). No, she did not support genocide. No, Planned Parenthood and the other birth control activists didn't support the Nazis. No way. No how. No doubt. 

If you look back at the controversies of the day a lot of the early feminists' opponents were also against women voting, Negro suffrage, organized labor and pacifists. In short, doctrines of ethnic superiority were a feature of the times. Sanger wanted to extend the status of self-willed full human being to women. The Conservatives of the day did not. And they have not stopped their opposition. The women's rights and birth control proponents have embraced a wider and more comprehensive view of human rights. The Full Quiver Christians, the Catholic League, the Republican Party, the AFF, Focus on the Family and all of Comstock's inbred hateful bastard children are still stuck at around 1913.


----------



## Big Don (Oct 15, 2007)

The thing about eugenics is it is rarely discussed. The most famous proponent of eugenics is KHAN NOONIAN SINGH. That ought to scare ya...


----------



## Makalakumu (Oct 16, 2007)

tellner said:


> So did a lot of people. But before you get out the Hitler brush to paint her and Planned Parenthood with remember a couple things. She was also arrested for giving birth control information to White Middle Class Protestant Americans. Eugenics was certainly part of her belief system at the beginning. It wasn't within a few years, and certainly not by the time that she died. The "Margaret Sanger and Hitler" crowd, on the other hand, have been telling distortions, slander and out and out lies about her from the word go and haven't stopped (e.g Operation Rescue, National Right to Life, Life Dynamics, etc.). No, she did not support genocide. No, Planned Parenthood and the other birth control activists didn't support the Nazis. No way. No how. No doubt.
> 
> If you look back at the controversies of the day a lot of the early feminists' opponents were also against women voting, Negro suffrage, organized labor and pacifists. In short, doctrines of ethnic superiority were a feature of the times. Sanger wanted to extend the status of self-willed full human being to women. The Conservatives of the day did not. And they have not stopped their opposition. The women's rights and birth control proponents have embraced a wider and more comprehensive view of human rights. The Full Quiver Christians, the Catholic League, the Republican Party, the AFF, Focus on the Family and all of Comstock's inbred hateful bastard children are still stuck at around 1913.


 
Once again, great post.  People who try and paint PP as a bunch of Nazis seem to forget that the Nazis stole most of their Eugenics ideas from us.  Back in these times, the US's Eugenics program was very advanced and supported by the highest echelons of the government.  Both positive (birth control) and negative (euthenasia) measures were promoted.

The funny thing is that if you go back far enough, you'll find some very strange bedfellows.  For example, one of the major contributors to starting PP was none other then Prescott Bush, W's grandfather...


----------



## Kreth (Oct 16, 2007)

What's always mystified me is that many of these hardcore RTL activists are men. :idunno:


----------



## Cruentus (Oct 16, 2007)

upnorthkyosa said:


> Once again, great post. People who try and paint PP as a bunch of Nazis seem to forget that the Nazis stole most of their Eugenics ideas from us. Back in these times, the US's Eugenics program was very advanced and supported by the highest echelons of the government. Both positive (birth control) and negative (euthenasia) measures were promoted.
> 
> The funny thing is that if you go back far enough, you'll find some very strange bedfellows. For example, one of the major contributors to starting PP was none other then Prescott Bush, W's grandfather...


 
Evidence please?


----------



## Flying Crane (Oct 16, 2007)

Kreth said:


> What's always mystified me is that many of these hardcore RTL activists are men. :idunno:


 
well, I think that's one of the big gripes that many of the pro-choice women have.  They feel that until men start getting pregnant and dealing with all the issues that go along with that and childbirth, they really have no grounds to tell the women what to do and how to do it.  I think they have a good point...


----------



## Big Don (Oct 16, 2007)

Flying Crane said:


> well, I think that's one of the big gripes that many of the pro-choice women have.  They feel that until men start getting pregnant and dealing with all the issues that go along with that and childbirth, they really have no grounds to tell the women what to do and how to do it.  I think they have a good point...


Being a pro-life man, it has ALWAYS been my opinion that the question isn't about choice, it is, whether or not it is permissible to end a life that  one person finds inconvenient. No one opposes abortion when the mother's life is genuinely at risk. Sadly, far too many abortions are issues of convenience not life or death for the mother. Believing in personal responsibility also means believing one must take the proper precautions in every part of life.


----------



## CoryKS (Oct 16, 2007)

Flying Crane said:


> well, I think that's one of the big gripes that many of the pro-choice women have. They feel that until men start getting pregnant and dealing with all the issues that go along with that and childbirth, they really have no grounds to tell the women what to do and how to do it. I think they have a good point...


 
Yes, but they never complain about the men who support their position, do they?  This particular stance is why I have bowed out completely.


----------



## Flying Crane (Oct 16, 2007)

Big Don said:


> Sadly, far too many abortions are issues of convenience not life or death for the mother. Believing in personal responsibility also means believing one must take the proper precautions in every part of life.


 
I actually agree very much with what you are saying here.  The thing about abortion that is actually very sad is that the vast majority could have been avoided.  Proper education and understanding of birth control, as well as access to birth control is key, but elements in our society seem to want to work against this.  Those people never should have gotten pregnant in the first place.  

Preventative birth control, when used correctly and consistently, is very reliable.  Yet we have "sex education" classes in our schools teaching that contraception is unreliable and risky, and often the religious element is brought in and teenagers with raging hormones are simply told "don't have sex because it's a sin".  But as we all can see, that just doesn't work.  It goes directly against human nature and at that age, under the influence of hormonal changes in teenage bodies, it's the rare individual who is able to actually resist the urge completely.

A friend of ours confided that she and her husband were trying to buy condoms in a Walgreens.  They wandered all over the store and couldn't find them.  They finally discovered that they were in a locked case behind the cashier station, and they had to ask the cashier for them.  They were told by the cashier that they are kept locked away to prevent the teenagers from stealing them.

OK, much of this scenario is, in my opinion, just asking for trouble.  First off, everyone, including an embarrassed teenager, has to face the cashier and deliberately ask for the condoms by name and type and size, and I think for most teenagers that is a real deterrant.  These things should just be made free for the teenagers for the taking, because the embarrassment prevents them from buying them, but it sure as hell doesn't prevent them from having sex.  If these things were just happily given out, no questions asked, I am sure a lot of unwanted pregnancies, and by extension, unfortunate abortions among teenagers, could be prevented.

I am not advocating that teenagers should be having sex.  I think they would benefit by waiting until they are older and more mature emotionally and better able to deal with it.  But I think we need to be realistic and accept the fact that as much as they are told not to, no matter what threats and hellfire and brimstone they are faced with, a certain fairly high percentage is still going to have sex, and a certain percentage of those are going to become mothers before they graduate from high school.  

For the love of god, let the teenagers have contraceptives, make sure they understand how to use them, and don't embarrass them into not getting them.  It's better for everyone, and it reduces the rate of abortions.


----------



## Flying Crane (Oct 16, 2007)

CoryKS said:


> Yes, but they never complain about the men who support their position, do they? This particular stance is why I have bowed out completely.


 
why would anyone complain about anybody who agrees with them about anything?


----------



## CoryKS (Oct 16, 2007)

Flying Crane said:


> why would anyone complain about anybody who agrees with them about anything?


 
I suppose it depends on which is more important: integrity or winning.  If the argument is that men, who cannot become pregnant, are not qualified to be agin' it, it follows that men, for the same reason, are not qualified to be fer it either.


----------



## Flying Crane (Oct 16, 2007)

CoryKS said:


> I suppose it depends on which is more important: integrity or winning. If the argument is that men, who cannot become pregnant, are not qualified to be agin' it, it follows that men, for the same reason, are not qualified to be fer it either.


 

No, I don't think it can be simplified in that way.

I think it's a valid argument to say that men should not dictate how women handle their pregnancies, because men cannot experience pregnancy themselves and they are speaking from an outside and disconnected point of view.

I think it's also valid for other men to understand this point, and stand in agreement with those women.

I also think it is valid for men or women to say "Hey, some people are just irresponsible, they are fully educated and capable of avoiding pregnancy yet they don't even try, and then they want to just use abortion to clean up their problems.  So and So has had 8 abortions of convenience, and that's not right"  I would agree with this kind of statement as well, that this kind of behavior is inappropriate, altho I suspect it is not common.

It has little to do with integrity or winning.  It's understanding the different aspects of the issue.  Abortion is an issue that raises many considerations, and it can be an emotionally charged issue.  Some people are only able to approach the issue from one angle.  Others from a different angle.  Still others try to consider all (or at least several) of the angles and then take a position after weighing all aspects of a difficult problem.

I personally don't like abortion, I don't think anyone would claim to LIKE it.  But I also believe it is an unfortunate necessity at times, and it should be legal and safe, and ultimately it should be a decision between the mother, the father, and her doctor, but I would ultimately give more weight to the mother than the father.


----------



## CoryKS (Oct 16, 2007)

Flying Crane said:


> No, I don't think it can be simplified in that way.
> 
> I think it's a valid argument to say that men should not dictate how women handle their pregnancies, because men cannot experience pregnancy themselves and they are speaking from an outside and disconnected point of view.
> 
> I think it's also valid for other men to understand this point, and stand in agreement with those women.


 
Then is it also valid that some women are opposed to abortion?  And, if so, is it not valid for some men to understand this point and stand in agreement with _those_ women?

Keep in mind, I'm not debating whether abortion should be legal or not, whether it's bad or not.  I fall into the category of "don't oppose, but won't support your effort".  And the "you have no womb to talk" argument is why I won't support.


----------



## Flying Crane (Oct 16, 2007)

CoryKS said:


> Then is it also valid that some women are opposed to abortion? And, if so, is it not valid for some men to understand this point and stand in agreement with _those_ women?


 
yes, I think there is room for that, tho I personally lean toward the other side in this point.  It's one of the many facets of the issue, and some facets mean more to some people and less to others.



> Keep in mind, I'm not debating whether abortion should be legal or not, whether it's bad or not. I fall into the category of "don't oppose, but won't support your effort". And the "you have no womb to talk" argument is why I won't support.


 
sure, I think everyone finds their own way to deal with it.  I think it's an ugly issue no matter what.  In a perfect world it would not be necessary at all, but that's not reality.


----------



## tellner (Oct 16, 2007)

It's interesting how many things go together in the anti-choice camp.


Feminism of all sorts is a dirty word
Contraception is bad.
Non-abortifacient contraception is really abortion
Comprehensive sex education is bad
Sex is bad unless it's between married couples
Homosexuality is particularly bad. Male homosexuality is the worst
Anything that doesn't punish non-marital sex is bad
There are very strict and distinct roles for men and women
Women should generally defer to men and submit to their husbands
Men should be in most positions of power in the economy and government
A general hostility towards science insofar as it challenges their beliefs
The Church should have a much greater role in the State than it is currently permitted

It's amazingly consistent.

For a very succinct view of the whole thing read How the Pro-Choice Movement Saved America: Freedom, Politics and the War on Sex


----------



## Big Don (Oct 16, 2007)

tellner said:


> It's interesting how many things go together in the anti-choice camp.


 The liberal version of that is "Traditional morals are limiting and thus illegal"


----------



## CoryKS (Oct 16, 2007)

tellner said:


> It's interesting how many things go together in the anti-choice camp.
> 
> Feminism of all sorts is a dirty word
> Contraception is bad.
> ...


 
Of course it's consistent.  Every point you've enumerated is a factor in maintaining a high birth rate.  Which is something that is a concern to those who wish to "conserve" their culture.  Conservative, get it?  But don't take my word for it, check out the birth rates in the Islamic countries.  They have this **** down to a science.

btw: you forgot masturbation. Big no-no there.  Same reason.


----------



## shesulsa (Oct 16, 2007)

Hello?  The point here is not whether it is good or bad, right or wrong - the point is that it will happen regardless.  Women who are opposed to abortion GET abortions whether the procedure is legal or not.

Is it not, then, incumbent upon us to focus on preventative medicine as a public health concern? Can we not make abortions legal and safe so that we may make a transition from a world waging war on sex, conduct and feminism to a world where families have the best chance of remaining intact, mothers whole and healthy, children care for?

I think we have to stop standing on our spiritual soapboxes and start paying attention - unplanned pregnancy is the most common health concern in the world - it beats AIDS, cancer, communicable diseases, birth defects, Down Syndrome, Autism.

I think everyone believes that unwanted pregnancy is something that only happens to loose women who get drunk in bars and have sex in the handicapped spot in the parking lot or teenage girls who want desperately to be in fairy-tale love with the football team captain.  Look around you.

Secretaries.
Sunday School teachers.
Dentists.
Neurologists.
Rocket Scientists.
Accountants.
Store clerks.
Manicurists.
Construction workers.
Financial consultants.
Insurance Agents.
Firefighters.
Police women.
Black belts.
White belts.
Cooks
Waitresses.
Lawyers.
Physical Therapists.
Professional athletes.
Sister Mary Margaret.
Politicians.
Right-wing activists.
Feminist Suffragettes.
Railroad workers
Truck drivers.
Mechanics
 ...

name a profession - a woman likely has it - and someone in that profession has likely had an unplanned pregnancy. 

If it's no big deal, let's plop another several million orphaned children onto the face of the planet.  Right now.  What crises would we be dealing with then?

The point is UNPLANNED PREGNANCY IS AN EPIDEMIC CRISIS and we are not doing anything to stop it with the limits on sex education.  Are we going to honor the life-givers with the care and prevention they require?  Or are we going to thumb our nose at them, indicate they are not good enough to care for, but they are good enough to pop out another consumer?


----------



## tellner (Oct 16, 2007)

Of course it ties in with high birth rates. And that is great if you're an ignorant, backward, peasant with nothing to look forward to in your short life but drudgery and pain.

The thing is, we have brains. One of the things we do with these brains is make things easier. So let me introduce you to the Demographic Transition.

Most societies stay somewhere around replacement.

When lives are short and infant mortality is high people have lots of children, particularly when they are agrarian and every child is an economic asset. In hunter-gatherer societies mortality isn't quite as high, and women space their children by extended nursing and modifying their sexual practices.

When development and urbanization start in earnest birth rates stay high, and infant mortality goes down. Population skyrockets.

After a generation or so women start to realize that there is more to life than churning out babies like it was Barnum and Bailey and their uterus was a clown car. They get education and become more independent. They see that if they cut down on the number of children and space them out more of them have a chance at education and a prosperous life. So they catch on and stop having five or six They have one to three. They still have about the same number of children surviving to adulthood, but they aren't tired and worn down by forty.

We saw it among the subhuman Irish, the degenerate Mediterraneans, the uncivilized Americans, the primitive Russians, and the Endless Hordes of Asia. It's universal. And it even happens _mirabile dictu_ among the Swarthy Oriental Islamic Terrorist Fiends. Look at Jordan, Iran, Iraq, Turkey, and quite a few of the emirates. 

It was happening when my wife grew up in Darkest Africa during the 1970s. The girls she went to school with came from big families. Eight to twelve children wasn't all that uncommon. They didn't want any part of that. Two, maybe three so they could give them all a good life and have one themselves.

That's how it is. It's universal. The only way to stop it is by vicious and brutal repression. Even that is like King Canute trying to hold back the tide. Appeals to propaganda and ideology only work for so long when basic self interest is at stake.


----------



## tellner (Oct 16, 2007)

shesulsa said:


> Is it not, then, incumbent upon us to focus on preventative medicine as a public health concern? Can we not make abortions legal and safe so that we may make a transition from a world waging war on sex, conduct and feminism to a world where families have the best chance of remaining intact, mothers whole and healthy, children care for?


No, we can't. By "we" I mean those to whom keeping women in their "proper" place is fundamental. You see it right here with the people who decry anything else as racial suicide and "liberal". They do not want women who are happy, free, independent and healthy. They want women to shut up, do as they are told, have as many babies as possible and go back to being their husbands' property. 

Women like you are the enemy. Men like me are traitors.

It really is that simple.



> The point is UNPLANNED PREGNANCY IS AN EPIDEMIC CRISIS and we are not doing anything to stop it with the limits on sex education.  Are we going to honor the life-givers with the care and prevention they require?  Or are we going to thumb our nose at them, indicate they are not good enough to care for, but they are good enough to pop out another consumer?



If unplanned pregnancy were the issue they would be up front demanding comprehensive sex education and easy access to affordable contraception. But that is not the issue. Look at the previous posts. It is part of a wider urge to make sure women have one role and one role only: baby factories owned by their men, first their fathers, then their husbands, then their sons. Those who step out of that tiny box must be punished. And we must make it as difficult as possible for them._ Kinder, kirche, und kuchen_ for the Glory of the Race.

That's why Ms. Sanger was arrested and more than once. She gave women the means to have as many or as few children as they wanted when they wanted. According to Comstock and the rest of that crew that was indecent.


----------



## tellner (Oct 16, 2007)

Big Don said:


> [/list]The liberal version of that is "Traditional morals are limiting and thus illegal"



First of all, do you have any idea what "traditional morals" are? They've been so far over the map that you need a telescope to see the edges. One thing that's absolutely certain is that you wouldn't recognize them if they came up and bit you on the butt. 

Let's just stick to the United States. You're probably not interested in the rest of the world for these purposes. 

Up until the twentieth century most men's first sexual experience was with a prostitute. And a very good case can be made that most men got most of their sex from whores. The family was primarily an economic unit. Romantic love between man and wife was not expected or even something to be valued. As long as they made money and raised children it was all good. It was common for men to have mistresses but not acceptable for women to have lovers of their own. 

A woman was a man's property from the day she was born until the day her last husband died. Assuming, of course, that anyone would want to marry a widow who was "spoiled goods". Most states had laws against married women owning property, entering into contracts, or acting independently in any legal setting. The original American laws concerning a woman harming or killing her husband were not assault or homicide but _petit treason_. A woman had no right to deny her husband sex under any circumstances. She had no right to her own children. They were her husband's. 

Women couldn't vote. They couldn't have a drink in a bar. Many places they couldn't order a meal in a restaurant. They couldn't get a diaphragm to prevent pregnancy. They couldn't vote. They were barred from almost all professions. If they did have a job they could be raped by their employers. And they had no right to object or to demand the same pay for doing the same job as a man. 

On the upside, female homosexuality was pretty much ignored. "Boston marriages" as they were called were common and unremarkable. Physical romantic friendships among women of the upper middle classes and up were tolerated, even indulged. And there was good money for doctors. Treating "hysteria" (cf. _The Technology of Orgasm_) through manipulation until "crisis" was the single biggest moneymaker for American physicians during the late 19th and early 20th centuries. The vibrator was invented to speed up the process. 

Slaves were fair game. Once we got radical and untraditional it was barely a crime to rape a Black woman. The races were kept separate in the name of Traditional Moral Values.

In fact, I ran smack into the last vestiges of Race Law here in Oregon when I got married. The Radical Liberal Supreme Court destroyed the Republic in 1954 by saying that miscegenation laws were illegal, thereby trampling on Sacred States' Rights and allowing God-Fearing Whites to pollute themselves with lower races. At the time Oregon's Constitution forbade a "member or the White Race" from "marrying a Mulatto, Free Negro, Chinaman or Kanaka". When Tiel and I went to get our marriage license the tail end of that law reared up and flashed its last fang. The law still required that the County collect racial data to prevent this Sin against God and Nature. I am proud to say that we got that law changed.

Those are your "traditional morals" with all the glitter and makeup removed and laid bare for everyone to see. They are foul and ugly in their nakedness. They are based on turning half of the human race into things, not people. They are every bit as bad as the treatment of women in Pakistan, Afghanistan, and the Arab world which the Right now uses to justify  its military adventures.


----------



## crushing (Oct 16, 2007)

tellner said:


> It's interesting how many things go together in the anti-choice camp.
> 
> Feminism of all sorts is a dirty word
> Contraception is bad.
> ...


 
I see the stereotype you are working, but people don't have to be in agreement with any of those bullet points, nor be religious to be opposed abortion.

Additionally, the "general hostility towards science insofar as it challenges their beliefs" works both ways on this one.  Science has given us the ability to see the process of the human life-cycle up close.  But, DO NOT use that information to help educate the host organism about the life ending choice.  We'd hate for people to start thinking that the living growing _thing_ is a unique human with its own human DNA.  That it's not a pig, a tadpole, or otherwise apparently more easily killable animal.  The DNA difference between _it_ and its host organism confirms its not a hangnail nor a verifrom appendix to be dumped in the biohazard bin.


----------



## tellner (Oct 16, 2007)

Next, of course, is the ridiculous lie that everyone besides you - which seems to be what you mean by "liberal" - is trying to keep you from exercising your own morality over yourself. When you actually start to look at facts rather than blind faith and blinder hatred for everything that is different it doesn't even come close to looking like that.

Want to have lots of children? If you can find a like-minded woman it's your right. Of course, the Bible Belt, which practices this is also the biggest suckler on the Federal teat when it comes to welfare. And your marriages are shorter. And you have more children out of wedlock for every hundred functioning fannies. But that's irrelevant, of course.

Want to have creepy "Purity Balls" with fake silver Purity Rings? Not a problem. Most decent people think the whole thing has some nasty overtones, but it's not any of our business unless you try to make us pay for them or drag decent people to them.

Don't want to use contraceptives? Fine. 

Want to remain virgins until you're married? Cool. "Marry in haste. Repent at leisure." It's your marriage. And, like I noted above, gawdless liberal states tend to have longer more stable marriages. That's just reality's well-known liberal bias, so we'll ignore it.

A woman wants to give herself utterly over to the Dominion and Loving Discipline of her husband who is like a g-d unto her as G-d is to him? Fine. If you like that sort of kinky edge-play it's your scene. Thank goodness nobody else's family is forced to do it.

Do you want to believe that a literal interpretation of the writings of semi-literate sheep shaggers in the Middle East is the way to govern your life? Fine. In fact, great. Those semi-literate sheep shaggers were my ancestors! Just don't force me to live the same way. I like wool blend fabrics and cheeseburgers and don't believe that anyone who smashes babies' heads against the rocks and rapes captive women is "blessed" for doing it.

Let's look at what people like you want to make illegal:


A woman wants to vote.
A woman wants to own her own property.
A woman wants to wear pants.
A woman wants to limit or space the number of children she has.
A man and woman want to make love without engaging in a permanent irrevocable contract.
A man and man want to make love and not be murdered for it.
A Catholic, Jew, Mormon, Muslim, Buddhist or Pastafarian wants his religion to receive just as much official protection as yours.
A Black man wants to marry a White woman.
A woman wants to leave an abusive brute whom she had the poor judgment to marry and have her own life.
A woman hasn't met a man she wants to marry and wants to have a life including a sex life.
A man wants to marry two women, just like they did in the Bible
A scientist wants science taught in science classes, not superstition
A school board wants children to be taught the truth about reproduction and given accurate information rather than "just say no"
A couple wants to add a toy to spice up their bedroom routine.
All of these are or were illegal under your "traditional morals". Who is bringing the terrible coercive power of the Law down on the heads of people who want to live according to their values? Who is standing up for freedom? About the only one where your values trump the "liberal" ones is in the freedom to kill in self defense and to have the tools to do so. And some of us are coming around on that one.


----------



## tellner (Oct 16, 2007)

crushing said:


> I see the stereotype you are working, but people don't have to be in agreement with any of those bullet points, nor be religious to be opposed abortion.


The problem is that it's not a stereotype. It's point-for-point, fact-for-fact precisely what the prominent anti-choice groups espouse. There are certainly people who are against abortion who do not support all or even most of these. But the organizations are right down the line in accord with all of them. And they are, every single one I've seen, motivated by religious fundamentalism with close ties to religious organizations, almost all Christian.

That is the face and history of the movement _as a movement_. It is fundamentally opposed to women's rights, hostile to contraception, sexuality outside very strict bounds, pluralism and science. It is significant that not one single anti-choice pressure group supports comprehensive sex education or easy access to non-abortifacient contraception. Once in a while you get a standout like C. Everett Koop. But when he took his duty as a physician over his personal political beliefs he was disowned by the same people who gave him the job.



> Additionally, the "general hostility towards science insofar as it challenges their beliefs" works both ways on this one.  Science has given us the ability to see the process of the human life-cycle up close.  But, DO NOT use that information to help educate the host organism about the life ending choice.



Don't make me laugh. Honestly.

If you liook at the Right's view of science it is hostile without exception. From Galileo to Darwin, from heliocentrism to biology to modern physics to geology, physical anthropology, global warming, neuro-science and more science has always had to fight hard for the right to approach truth. Dogma has always fought it, often with the most brutal and crude tools. 

I've said it many times before and will say it again.

Revealed religion is hostile to science and always has been. Science forces you to ask inconvenient questions and take the facts and data over the authority of the Church. There is, in the end, no question that can not be asked and no dogma that can not, must not, be discarded when it is proven to be in error. Revealed religion gets its authority from things that can not, must not ever be questioned. If it's Holy Writ it is Right, no matter what.

The two worldviews are fundamentally incompatible.

The best you get is a pathetic version of Cargo Cult Science. Its perpetrators pick and choose from scientific results to find comforting words that seem to support whatever delusions of which they are most fond. They lack the fundamental courage and honesty to take science's fundamental challenge and say "It might or might not be true. Let's see where the information leads us."

Another unbridgeable gap between Revelation and Science is that the Believer is fundamentally in search of certainty. He is looking for things that he can believe now and forever. Science is just the opposite. No matter how good the theory is and how well it's supported one inconvenient fact can overturn it. Your magnum opus may be revolutionary. Sooner or later it will be extended, disproven, or incorporated into something else. And that's fine. 

Nobody has been able to reconcile them so far. I doubt that anyone ever will.


----------



## crushing (Oct 16, 2007)

tellner said:


> The problem is that it's not a stereotype. It's point-for-point, fact-for-fact precisely what the prominent anti-choice groups espouse. There are certainly people who are against abortion who do not support all or even most of these.


 
Maybe more than you realize, but it's tough to tell because of the straw (wo)men that are built.  Someone speaks up about traditional values (whatever that means to that individual, I am not sure) and the next thing you know the person is being called out as a racist, misogynist, homophobe.  I guess that is one way to try to shut up those that are opposed to abortion.  At least it didn't go to Godwin levels. . .yet.



tellner said:


> Don't make me laugh. Honestly.
> 
> If you liook at the Right's view of science it is hostile without exception.


 
I can't speak for and won't defend what you call 'the Right', so I guess that's it.


----------



## Big Don (Oct 16, 2007)

tellner said:


> Let's look at what people like you want to make illegal:
> 
> A woman wants to vote.



 Which Republicans voted for and Democrats voted AGAINST, just like Civil Rights...





> [*]A woman wants to own her own property.


 Uh, it is liberals, that is democrats telling ALL Property owners what LEGAL activities are not allowed on Private property. Otherwise, be kind enough to cite proof. 





> [*]A woman wants to wear pants.


 You know what, you cannot honestly compare Christians to Muslims any more than you can honestly compare apples to oranges. 





> [*]A woman wants to limit or space the number of children she has.


 Andrea Yates is not a good role model. Saying the killing of absolute innocents should not be allowed is not saying a woman cannot control the spacing or number of children she has. Abortion is NOT a contraceptive! http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/contraceptive a contraceptive PREVENTS conception an abortion KILLS the result of conception. Rubbers, the pill, the patch and every other method of birth control, except abstinence, have a statistical failure rate even when used correctly. However, people who abstain from sex don't have children 





> [*]A man and woman want to make love without engaging in a permanent irrevocable contract.


 Can you name five states where this has been prosecuted in the past 20 years? Post proof or retract. 





> [*]A man and man want to make love and not be murdered for it.


 Aside from the idiot Phelps clan, post proof of any republican member of congress, blogger, or conservative radio host advocating that. Because, that is a bs assertion, and you well know it.





> [*]A Catholic, Jew, Mormon, Muslim, Buddhist or Pastafarian wants his religion to receive just as much official protection as yours.


 Catholics and Jews are made fun of all the time, as a matter of fact, those telling the most, and arguably the funniest, Jew jokes are Jews. Name five instances of anti-Catholic, Anti- Mormon or Anti-Buddhist hate crime prosecutions. Whats a matter, can't find what doesn't exist?





> [*]A Black man wants to marry a White woman.


 Another example of something Democrats voted to keep illegal. 





> [*]A woman wants to leave an abusive brute whom she had the poor judgment to marry and have her own life.


 No one in any free country would stop her





> [*]A woman hasn't met a man she wants to marry and wants to have a life including a sex life.


 Who is stopping her? Is calling a promiscuous woman a promiscuous woman now a hate crime too? Gee, honesty is outlawed? 





> [*]A man wants to marry two women, just like they did in the Bible


 The insane should never be coddled. No sane man wants more than one wife... 





> [*]A scientist wants science taught in science classes, not superstition


 Like Man made global warming? Coming Ice ages? those superstitions?





> [*]A school board wants children to be taught the truth about reproduction and given accurate information rather than "just say no"


Why is the FACT that it is well nigh impossible to become pregnant or contract a sexually transmitted disease without sexual contact so threatening to you?





> [*]A couple wants to add a toy to spice up their bedroom routine.






> All of these are or were illegal under your "traditional morals". Who is bringing the terrible coercive power of the Law down on the heads of people who want to live according to their values? Who is standing up for freedom? About the only one where your values trump the "liberal" ones is in the freedom to kill in self defense and to have the tools to do so. And some of us are coming around on that one.



There are ways in place to change laws. Get enough people to agree with you and change the laws you don't like. Don't ***** and moan and whine about how unfair life is. Life is unfair, get a helmet!


----------



## Ray (Oct 16, 2007)

Big Don said:


> Catholics and Jews are made fun of all the time, as a matter of fact, those telling the most, and arguably the funniest, Jew jokes are Jews. Name five instances of anti-Catholic, Anti- Mormon or Anti-Buddhist hate crime prosecutions.


Funny you should mention the law and different relgions including Mormons.  Q: Why did the Mormons leave Missouri in the 19th century?   A: The govenor issued an extermination order.  I copied this text from wiki:

The following order was issued by Governor Lillburn Boggs:
_Copy of a Military Order by the Governor of Missouri. HEAD QUARTERS, MILITIA, City of Jefferson, Oct. 27, 1838._ Sir:--Since the order of the morning to you, directing you to cause four hundred mounted men to be raised within your division, I have received by Amos Rees, Esq. and Wiley E. Williams Esq., one of my aids, information of the most appalling character, which changes the whole face of things, and places the Mormons in the attitude of an open and avowed defiance of the laws, and of having made open war upon the people of this state. Your orders are, therefore, to hasten your operations and endeavor to reach Richmond, in Ray County, with all possible speed. *The Mormons must be treated as enemies, and must be exterminated or driven from the state, if necessary, for the public good.* Their outrages are beyond all description. If you can increase your force, you are authorized to do so to any extent you may think necessary. I have just issued orders to Maj. Gen. Wallock, of Marion County, to raise 500 men and march them to the northern part of Daviess, and there unite with Gen. Doniphan, of Clay, who has been ordered with 500 men to proceed to the same point, for the purpose of intercepting the retreat of the Mormons to the North. They have been directed to communicate with you by express. You can also communicate with them if you find it necessary. Instead, therefore, of proceeding, as at first directed, to reinstate the citizens of Daviess in their homes, you will proceed immediately to Richmond, and there operate against the Mormons. Brig. Gen. Parks, of Ray, has been ordered to have four hundred men of his brigade in readiness to join you at Richmond. The whole force will be placed under your command. L. W. BOGGS, Gov. And Command-in-chief. To Gen. Clark.​


----------



## Big Don (Oct 16, 2007)

Christ, a figure central to Christianity, DUH!, was depicted a few years ago in a jar of urine. Was the "Artist" arrested, beaten, killed? NO! 
Mohammad was depicted in some rather famous cartoons not too long ago and Muslims rioted. 
Was either act nice? Probably not. Were we lectured in and by the media about how we must be nice to Christians? God forbid. (pun intended!) Were we lectured about depictions of Mohammed? YES, we were. Is that equal treatment? Not by a long shot.


----------



## Big Don (Oct 16, 2007)

you can bet Theo van Gogh didn't find Muslims all that tolerant of his views.


----------



## tellner (Oct 16, 2007)

Don, I'll address your longer post later. Right now I'm cooking Chicken Tikka Masala, and it's at a tricky point.

But I'll deal with your little tidbit of bigotry now.

Before you sprain your arm patting yourself on the back consider your own religion's history of unprecedented murder on an industrial scale...

Theo van Gogh was murdered by Muslim extremists. Definitely. But if you won't distinguish between the backwards salafist fanatics and the vast bulk of decent Muslims one can only extend the same courtesy to your religion. You deserve, by your own standards, to be tarred with the same broad brush that you apply to a billion people. Beams and splinters as someone famous once said.

This sort of atrocity is not the exclusive province of Christianity. It is a regrettable human trait against which we must be constantly vigilant. "In the whole world there's no group quite as cool as my group. In my group there's nobody quite as cool as me," is everyone's secret motto. The same tendencies can be found in every land and among every group of people. But since you're setting your religion and people up with smug superiority you're getting both barrels. 

Thousands upon thousands of Black men were murdered by Christian extremists in this country, many in our lifetime, because G-d Almighty didn't want them to get uppity. Lynching in the Post WWI era was undeniably a tool of social control to keep Black people in line with Christian expectations. At least that's what the White churches preached. 

We have gone to war to kill Muslims and are doing so right now by the hundreds of thousands. Remember Undersecretary of State Boykin, a disgrace to the uniform and a criminal to boot? He's there because "Allah is Satan". How about Anne Coulter and her "Invade them, kill their leaders and convert them to Christianity"? The United States military has been forced to allow outside groups to come into training areas to convert recruits to Protestant Fundamentalism. For the first time ever chaplains are allowed to proselytize. The USAF Academy has become notorious, relegating Jews and other non-believers to "punishment formations" and "heathen flights".

Christianity has a long history of killing absolutely everyone who refused to worship their deity in precisely the correct way? Waldenses, Albigensians, Protestants, Papists, Aryans, Copts, Nestorians, Orthodox, Jews, Pagans, the Irish Christian Church, Mithraists and so on and so forth world without end have all been on the receiving end of the Church's tender mercies. Most of these groups are extinct or well on their way.

My own ancestors were the absolute lowest of the low in Europe - Romanian and Ukrainian Jews. What's worse, some of them were Gypsies. They were raped, murdered, hunted and driven mercilessly until they finally left the continent. Those who remained? Up the chimney to the applause of the Romanian and Ukrainian Churches. 

Further East a century and more ago we went to war to force the Chinese to accept our drug pushers. The missionaries were right there in the forefront killing the innocent and exhorting the troops. That's why there's a Chinese saying "Buddha came into China on a white horse. Christ came in on a cannonball."

In recent times it has gotten somewhat better in the West. Why? Precisely because of Enlightenment values and the spirit of humanistic tolerance and recognition that all people are human beings. The Church has tended to fight it bitterly every step of the way. It is precisely the extent to which the Church has been weakened that has determined the progress of the Scientific and Industrial Revolutions, the valuing of reason over superstition, the progress of women, the poor, the infidel and the dark-skinned.

Does Islam today suffer from the same malady? Of course. But there were centuries when the West was the home of backwards, ignorant, vicious murdering savages. Say, up until the seventeenth century or so. For hundreds of years before it was the Caliphate that was the seat of civilization West of China. When the Jews and Muslims were driven from Spain it was the Ottoman Sultan who took them in and said "Who are these Spanish Christians who enrich me by impoverishing themselves?"

"What ye do to the least of these my bretheren ye do to me."

Here endeth the lesson.


----------



## Cruentus (Oct 16, 2007)

:rofl: :rofl: :rofl:

What the hell!? How did we end up talking about Mormons, Muslims, Van Gogh, etc.?!

I think we have seriously gotten off track here.

Here is what Shesulsa presented:

She cited and article that showed that the legal status of abortion does not effect the amount of abortions, and has not dissuaded people from seeking an end to pregnancy.

I think the discussion here has little to do with whether abortion is right or wrong (per say), whether the liberals are trying to make traditional values illegal, or whether the right is trying to enslave women, or whether the mormons should be tolerated, and on and on.

For Pete's sake...

The discussion here is if you think that abortion should be legal or not legal in light of the article that has been presented.

I'll restate my opinion. I don't like to call myself "pro-life" or "pro-choice" because I really don't want to be associated with either camp, as my views don't comfortably fit in either. But, I am not for abortion most of the time. However, I also knew before this thread that making it illegal doesn't dissuade it from occuring. So making abortion illegal is something that I think would be at the very least useless to the "pro-life" agenda. Because of this, and because I do think that it is a personal decision that a mother needs to make, I don't think that abortion should be regulated by the government (ie. making it illegal). Furthermore, I would rather be in support of fighting against abortion through education and fighting against poverty, both of which are in my mind the #1 cause of abortion.

Now, what is your point of view in regards to _the topic_?

C.

P.S. I know that in these discussions, people can't usually read past three sentences before getting emotionally charged and turning off the brain in lew of construing their own response. Evidence can be seen in this very thread as the topic has been derailed more than once. So, I apologize for being long winded, as I am sure many people have already shut off their brains because I was unable to make my point in a more concise manner. ahem.


----------



## Kacey (Oct 16, 2007)

Cruentus said:


> Now, what is your point of view in regards to _the topic_?



Are there times when abortion should be an acceptable choice?  Yes, I think there are - when the mother's life is at risk, when the pregnancy is the result of incest or rape, when the fetus is not viable - and let's not get into a discussion of "viable"; in this instance, I am referring to cases such as happened to a woman I used to work with, whose fetus died _in utero_ - but the Catholic hospital her insurance used would only perform abortions when the life of the mother was clearly in danger, so they would not perform a therapeutic abortion until _after_ she went into toxic shock, even though that hospital is the one that told her the fetus had died (and was, therefore, quite clearly not viable in any sense), and they kept her in the hospital _knowing_ that she would develop toxic shock within several days... _then_ they performed an abortion, and treated her for a now-life threatening illness that could have easily been avoided.

When a fetus is clearly severely disabled (not _suspected_, but visibly), I think the decision of whether or not to continue the pregnancy should be up to the mother, the father (if actively present in the mother's life - a whole other issue in itself), and any people that the mother and father choose to consult - and no one else.

On the other hand, I personally know of several cases in which the mother has had repeated abortions because she just can't be bothered with contraception - and that I take serious exception to.  As I stated previously in this thread, I see a significant moral/ethical difference between *preventing* conception, and *ending* conception once it has occurred.

In the end, I think that if you don't approve of abortions, for whatever reasons - don't have one.  But don't force others to live by your personal moral/ethical code unless you are _personally _willing - and able - to raise the child whose abortion you prevent.


----------



## crushing (Oct 16, 2007)

Kacey said:


> In the end, I think that if you don't approve of abortions, for whatever reasons - don't have one. But don't force others to live by your personal moral/ethical code unless you are _personally _willing - and able - to raise the child whose abortion you prevent.


 
I'll admit that I don't have the resources to house all the people I don't think should be killed, independent of whether they live in Burma, Rwanda, or Darfor; if they are Sunni or Shiite, Jewish or Gypsie, or whether they are post-natal or pre-natal.  To me, age and location doesn't matter.

Live and let live.


----------



## Kacey (Oct 16, 2007)

crushing said:


> I'll admit that I don't have the resources to house all the people I don't think should be killed, independent of whether they live in Burma, Rwanda, or Darfor; if they are Sunni or Shiite, Jewish or Gypsie, or whether they are post-natal or pre-natal.  To me, age and location doesn't matter.
> 
> Live and let live.



I don't dispute anything you've said - but I do think that, if you are an abortion protester who talks a woman out of having an abortion, you have made yourself responsible for the child(ren) who will thus be born - and that responsibility extends until the child(ren) is/are adult(s).  I personally know of several women who were talked out of aborting a child they did not want, were not emotionally or financially able to raise properly, who were housed by an abortion protester, given a baby shower, and sent on their way as soon as the baby they didn't want was born.  Putting the child up for adoption to _anyone_ - never mind the protester who talked the woman out of the abortion - was never mentioned.  How to raise a child - wanted or not - was never mentioned.  As soon as the child was born, the women were sent on their way, by very satisfied abortion protesters who had saved a life and then divested themselves of any responsibility for the child.  I have a real problem with that.


----------



## Big Don (Oct 16, 2007)

Tellner, 
Like I said: Prove any of your idiotic and frankly, offensive assertions, i.e. punishment formations, etc, or admit you're as full of crap as a Christmas Turkey.


----------



## tshadowchaser (Oct 16, 2007)

folks I know this is the study but lets try to keep to the topic of legal restrictions on abortion 
if anyone has the numbers to go along with whatever study befor and after abortion laws lets see them
If anyone has the facts and can show where they got them on abortions in whatever country and the laws for or against abortion in that country lets see them
If you want to argue abortion take it to another thread maybe in horror stories or the bar and grill 
if you want to call each other bigots take it elsewhere completly


----------



## Cruentus (Oct 16, 2007)

Kacey said:


> I don't dispute anything you've said - but I do think that, if you are an abortion protester who talks a woman out of having an abortion, you have made yourself responsible for the child(ren) who will thus be born - and that responsibility extends until the child(ren) is/are adult(s). I personally know of several women who were talked out of aborting a child they did not want, were not emotionally or financially able to raise properly, who were housed by an abortion protester, given a baby shower, and sent on their way as soon as the baby they didn't want was born. Putting the child up for adoption to _anyone_ - never mind the protester who talked the woman out of the abortion - was never mentioned. How to raise a child - wanted or not - was never mentioned. As soon as the child was born, the women were sent on their way, by very satisfied abortion protesters who had saved a life and then divested themselves of any responsibility for the child. I have a real problem with that.


 
I see what you are saying, but I frankly disagree with that. There is an element of personal responsibility here that I think that many of the "pro-choicer's" like to ignore. If a woman gets pregnant, it's her fault unless she was raped. And regardless of who's "fault" it is, really, it still remains her responsability. Unless there is a serious health issue (of the baby or mother) I view abortion as a cop out on that responsiblity, plain and simple. And it isn't nor shouldn't be a requirement for someone who offers some help to someone to now take care of them or take care of a baby. It's not anyone elses responsability but the mothers and the fathers, and the unfortunate circumstance is that fathers can cop out more easily because the baby is not inside of them. And a lot of times life is not fair, too.

So, I don't buy that. Furthermore, adoption and foster agencies have strict requirements in regards to placing children with families, so the notion that it would be so horrible to have to give the child up for adoption without knowing the adoptive parents isn't a big deal when one considers the alternative, in my opinion.

And I don't buy into the idea that abortion is a viable solution to problems of unwanted kids, either.

But, as I mentioned before, just because I don't buy into these arguments, that doesn't mean that I should support government or medical community control over the issue.


----------



## Carol (Oct 16, 2007)

Cruentus said:


> It's not anyone elses responsability but the mothers and the fathers, and the unfortunate circumstance is that fathers can cop out more easily because the baby is not inside of them.



Yup. I'm not a man basher, not in the least.  I love men.     But sadly, when the abortion debate is raised, there seem to be more men that criticize women for their actions than their are men criticising men for their actions.  And personally, I think that is extremely misguided.


----------



## michaeledward (Oct 17, 2007)

Several month ago, I tripped over this intersting article. It based on anecdotal evidence, which certainly does not qualify as statistically significant. 
But, one of the axioms about a woman terminating a pregnancy, is that it does take place behind closed doors. Because of this, we on the other side of that closed doors, can project much of our bias and belief to what we imagine is going on, and what is motivating those goings on. 

http://mypage.direct.ca/w/writer/anti-tales.html

Behind closed doors, we often find hypocrasy.



> "The Only Moral Abortion is My Abortion"
> _When the Anti-Choice Choose
> _By Joyce Arthur
> 
> ...


 
The article, I believe, ends on a note that is hopeful. Hopeful toward some in society that need hope, at a time when they most need hope.



> On occasion, an abortion turns out to be a momentous, life-affirming experience for an anti-choice woman. A doctor from a north-western state shared the following personal story with me:
> "I was born into a very Catholic family, and was politically pro-life during college. After dating my first real boyfriend for three years, we broke up, and the day my boyfriend moved out, I discovered I was pregnant. It was an agonizing decision, and something I _never _thought I would do, but I decided an abortion was the only realistic option. Thanks to Planned Parenthood counseling, I worked through some very tough conflicts within myself. I had to learn that my decision was a loving one. That 'my god' was actually a loving and supportive god. And that men don't have to make this decision, only women do. That it is a very personal, individual decision. I had to own it. I became much more compassionate towards myself and others as a result of my experience. Two years later I began medical school. When it came time to choose a practice, an abortion clinic opportunity came up. In working there, I began to feel that this was my calling. Having been in my patients' shoes, and coming from an unforgiving background, I could honestly say to patients, 'I know how you feel.' Deciding to have an abortion was THE hardest decision I've ever made in my life. Yet it has brought me the greatest transformation, fulfillment, and now joy. I am a more loving person because of it, and a better doctor for having experienced it. I love the work that I do, and the opportunity to support women seeking to end an unwanted pregnancy. My patients and my work are life's gifts to me, and I think my compassion and support are my gifts in return."


----------



## Makalakumu (Oct 17, 2007)

And that's the rub isn't it.  People will find ways to have abortions no matter what.  Even the people who scream the loudest against them.  This begs the question, what is it about abortion that weaves its way into the human mind?

My thoughts on this are that abortion is the new infanticide.  For 80,000 years, if a homo sapian couldn't take care of a baby, this often was the only option available, however unpleasent.  

Knowing this, I would say that the urge to terminate unwanted pregnancies is hard wired into us all.  If you can't take care of a child for whatever reason, will never go away, it will always be something that humans do.

Abortion is a human trait as much as any other trait we all share.


----------



## crushing (Oct 17, 2007)

Carol Kaur said:


> Yup. I'm not a man basher, not in the least. I love men.  But sadly, when the abortion debate is raised, there seem to be more men that criticize women for their actions than their are men criticising men for their actions. And personally, I think that is extremely misguided.


 
I don't think it's necessarily criticism of women for their actions, but criticism of the system.  Men have a lot of responsibility forced on them, but no rights depending on the woman's choice.  If the woman chooses life, then he could be responsible for 18 years.  If the woman chooses otherwise, he has no rights to the new life they have created.  Usually rights and responsibility go hand in hand.

That being said, I think the most pro-abortion of people are also men.  It's just that their politicking and _counseling_ is done privately in the ears of their girlfriends.


----------



## michaeledward (Oct 17, 2007)

crushing said:


> That being said, I think the most pro-abortion of people are also men. It's just that their politicking and _counseling_ is done privately in the ears of their girlfriends.


 
That is a claim that begs substantiation. 

But, even if you do substantiate it, what you are saying is still that *men* *make the decision* for women. 

Personally, I tend to think that women are completely capable of making a decision, all on their own.


----------



## tellner (Oct 17, 2007)

Don, I know that facts and reason aren't any match for smug self satisfaction and self righteousness, but really. Reading a simple history book once in a while shouldn't be too difficult. I know you're offended by some of this, but it's quite simply true. You won't be convinced by anything I say. You've made it clear that you are going to believe what you want, and that's that. But because you ask...

http://www.salon.com/news/feature/2006/12/13/weinstein/index.html
http://www.antiwar.com/ips/berkowitz.php?articleid=6326
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/05/03/AR2005050301499.html
http://atheism.about.com/b/a/127799.htm
http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_qa3942/is_200507/ai_n14685219
http://www.religioustolerance.org/relintolafa.htm
http://www.salon.com/news/feature/2006/12/13/weinstein/index.html
http://dir.salon.com/story/books/review/2005/07/23/feldman/index.html

Now, as to just a few of the others...

The Opium Wars, involvement by the Church in the Klan and lynchings, the rights of women prior to the twentieth century, the mass murders of Jews, the Albigensians, the Waldenses, Protestants, Catholics, non-Christians and Orothodox by the Church? Those are all matters of simple undeniable fact. Women not owning property separate from their husbands, voting and the rest? The prevalence of prostitution in pre-20th century America? The demographic transition? The Church's role in all of these? If you can't crack a book, at least learn how to do a simple web search. These are all, every one of them, so completely parts of the public record that denying them is insane.

The Religious Right is against sexuality other than strictly prescribed within marriage and is hostile to contraception and women's rights? Listen to your own Ayatollahs like Dobson, Schlafly, Randall Terry, Robertson and Coulter. They say it every single day. Heck, look at who your Beloved Leader, the Commander Guy, the Decider is picking for to head up family planning, Susan Orr. Look at the record of his women's health commissioner. 

Things aren't true because you like them. They aren't false because you find them offensive. They aren't idiocy because they wipe the self satisfied smirk off your face and challenge you. 

What sort of evidence do you need? 

Sorry, that's a stupid question.

There isn't any standard of proof that would satisfy you. Facts aren't facts if they make you uncomfortable, so there's no point throwing the pearls out for the swine.


----------



## crushing (Oct 17, 2007)

michaeledward said:


> That is a claim that begs substantiation.
> 
> But, even if you do substantiate it, what you are saying is still that *men* *make the decision* for women.
> 
> Personally, I tend to think that women are completely capable of making a decision, all on their own.


 
I see what you are trying to do there.  Nice try.

I did not say women do not make the decision, nor did I say that they are incapable of making the decision.


----------



## michaeledward (Oct 17, 2007)

crushing said:


> I see what you are trying to do there. Nice try.
> 
> I did not say women do not make the decision, nor did I say that they are incapable of making the decision.


 
OK, then. What were you saying, when reconciled with this prior statement? 



			
				crushing said:
			
		

> I think the most pro-abortion of people are also men. It's just that their politicking and _counseling_ is done privately in the ears of their girlfriends.


 
If the women are making the decision, why do you mention an impact of a boyfriend/husband's 'pro-choice' "politicking and counseling'?


----------



## Gordon Nore (Oct 17, 2007)

Carol Kaur said:


> Yup. I'm not a man basher, not in the least. I love men.  But sadly, when the abortion debate is raised, there seem to be more men that criticize women for their actions than their are men criticising men for their actions. And personally, I think that is extremely misguided.


 
Which is why I seldom appear in these rigorous online debates about abortion -- they tend to be male-dominated. 

Shhh, ladies, the men are talking. Please refrain from making decisions about your own uteri until the facts are in.:idunno:


----------



## Grenadier (Oct 17, 2007)

_*ATTENTION ALL USERS:*

_Please, keep the conversation polite and respectful.

-Ronald Shin
-MT Senior Moderator-


----------



## Cruentus (Oct 17, 2007)

tellner said:


> Don, I know that facts and reason aren't any match for smug self satisfaction and self righteousness, but really. Reading a simple history book once in a while shouldn't be too difficult. I know you're offended by some of this, but it's quite simply true. You won't be convinced by anything I say. You've made it clear that you are going to believe what you want, and that's that. But because you ask...
> 
> http://www.salon.com/news/feature/2006/12/13/weinstein/index.html
> http://www.antiwar.com/ips/berkowitz.php?articleid=6326
> ...


 
Holy ****ing crap, Tellner!  Dude, seriously (I am asking just as another MT member) take it to the great debate or PM or something. Your's and Don's personal disagreements don't really have much to do with the topic.


----------



## MJS (Oct 18, 2007)

Come on guys, lets keep it civil and on track.

Thanks.


----------



## michaeledward (Oct 18, 2007)

An interesting observation was made by Cristian Page over at the Huffington Post; the silence from the pro-life crowd toward the actual evidence presented by this study. 

The information comes to us from the 'Guttmacher Institute'. This study provided, with scientific evidence backing it up, the factual evidence that making abortion illegal does not affect the rates of terminations. 

Yet, the goal of the pro-life crowd remains making abortion illegal.

Wouldn't it make more sense for the pro-life crowd to search for methods and tactics that actually reduce the number of terminations taking place? 

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/cristina-page/the-deafening-silence_b_68950.html


----------



## Ray (Oct 18, 2007)

I've been meaning to look up some details from a public TV speech given by "some guy" who did a study...yes, I know "some guy" and "a study" just sounds like "some stuff"...but I haven't had time to get the details.

And these are "generalized" statements of what he said - It surely doesn't apply to all women and so forth, just trying to get the gist of it across (because I can't seem to keep my mouth shut)

He put forth the idea that women who would have had abortions when it was illegal would have had them when it was legal.

Women who wouldn't have had abortions when it was illegal would have been less likely to have unprotected unmarried sex.  Those women (not those exact individuals, but that category of women today) are more likely to have unprotected unmarried sex with the thought that an abortion would work as a "back-up" plan.  But those women, if they do get pregnant, are less likely to actually have an abortion and less likely to put their child up for adoption, hence the increase in single mothers.

I thought it was an interesting argument.  And it kind of plays into the topic that whether legal or illegal there are women who will have an abortion.  And goes to the point that there are some people who will do an act regardless of the legality of it---and if the outlawed act is viewed as something "little" by society (like drinking during prohibition) then the law will be violated all the time; versus if the outlawed act is viewed as "big" (like murder) then it will be violated less frequently.


----------



## michaeledward (Oct 18, 2007)

I think, Ray, the most interesting word in your post is ... 

.... He ....

The whole line of reasoning sounds like some wishful thinking a guy dreamed up. 

The study at the Guttmacher Institute tells us that the rate of pregnancy termination does not change based on the legality/illegality of aborting an pregnancy. This result informs us that behavior is consistant regardless of the law.

If we wish to lower the number of terminations, we can look to nations with lower terminations (Netherlands, Belgium, Finland); they provide comprehensive sex education and easily available or free birth control.


----------



## Ray (Oct 18, 2007)

michaeledward said:


> The study at the Guttmacher Institute tells us that the rate of pregnancy termination does not change based on the legality/illegality of aborting an pregnancy. This result informs us that behavior is consistant regardless of the law.


Did you feel the need to say the same thing I said in different words? 


michaeledward said:


> If we wish to lower the number of terminations, we can look to nations with lower terminations (Netherlands, Belgium, Finland); they provide comprehensive sex education and easily available or free birth control.


If you wish to, go for it. Me and my significant other aren't going to have one and I'm too busy to change the wolrd.


----------



## tellner (Oct 18, 2007)

The Guttmacher Institute also came out with a study over a decade ago that showed a pretty conclusive link between comprehensive sex education - including contraception - and both lower pregnancy rates and a later age of first intercourse. Despite what the "pro life" movement says ignorance is _not_ strength.


----------



## Cryozombie (Oct 18, 2007)

michaeledward said:


> Yet, the goal of the pro-life crowd remains making abortion illegal.
> 
> Wouldn't it make more sense for the pro-life crowd to search for methods and tactics that actually reduce the number of terminations taking place?



No, because once you make somthing illegal it goes away.  Didn't you know that?  Gun control stopped gun crime.  Drugs are illegal so there is no drug problem.  And once you make abortion Illegal, they wont happen any more.

Yes.  That was all sarcasm.


----------



## Cryozombie (Oct 18, 2007)

michaeledward said:


> If we wish to lower the number of terminations, we can look to nations with lower terminations (Netherlands, Belgium, Finland); they provide comprehensive sex education and easily available or free birth control.



Not to mention educating people and making them understand that the Day After Pill is NOT an "abortion in a bottle"


----------



## tellner (Oct 18, 2007)

That kind of goes against what they want. A number or the more prominent groups say in their literature that Plan B, Ru-486, birth control pills and Norplant are all abortifacients. I've been inside a couple of the "Crisis Pregnancy Centers". They all gave out literature saying that birth control (they didn't specify) didn't work, caused abortion, and did terrible things to women.


----------



## michaeledward (Oct 18, 2007)

Ray said:


> Did you feel the need to say the same thing I said in different words?
> If you wish to, go for it. Me and my significant other aren't going to have one and I'm too busy to change the wolrd.


 
It didn't occur to me that we were saying the same thing. 

I thought you said that 'some women will not break the law'. 

I thought I said that 'the same number of women have abortions, regardless of the law'

Those things do not seem equal to me.

But, maybe that's not what you said.


----------



## Ray (Oct 18, 2007)

michaeledward said:


> It didn't occur to me that we were saying the same thing.
> 
> I thought you said that 'some women will not break the law'.
> 
> ...


When abortion was illegal there were women who would avoid unwanted pregnancy and avoid having to have an abortion. The equivalent women in this group today may become unintentionally pregnant, believing that they can take care of it with an abortion, find out that they are not willing to have a legal abortion and thus become unwed mothers.

I'm talking about a group of women who wouldn't have had abortions when it was illegal and are not willing to have abortions when it become legal. 

The propostion put forth is that some of the increase in single moms comes from the group of women who will not have legal abortions. In the past, they would have avoided the pregnancy.

So I am agreeing (stipulating without reading the study) that the number of abortions, legal and illegal, would have remained the same. But some other choices may have changed relative to preventing pregnancy or not.


----------



## michaeledward (Oct 18, 2007)

Ray said:


> When abortion was illegal there were women who would avoid unwanted pregnancy and avoid having to have an abortion. The equivalent women in this group today may become unintentionally pregnant, believing that they can take care of it with an abortion, find out that they are not willing to have a legal abortion and thus become unwed mothers.
> 
> I'm talking about a group of women who wouldn't have had abortions when it was illegal and are not willing to have abortions when it become legal.
> 
> ...


 
Ray, I'm stuck on the first sentence. 

"avoid unwanted pregnancy"

I just don't get how those words fit together. The verb being 'avoid' the adjective being 'unwanted'. I'm just wondering about those women who deliberately seek out those unwanted pregnancies. 

That just doesn't make sense to me. 

Maybe it's because I don't have a womb.


----------



## Kacey (Oct 18, 2007)

michaeledward said:


> Ray, I'm stuck on the first sentence.
> 
> "avoid unwanted pregnancy"
> 
> ...



Avoid = take precautions to prevent.  Knowing that one must break the law to deal with an unwanted occurrence (in this case, pregnancy) can cause one to take precautions to prevent _needing_ to break the law.  Knowing that an option exists that is legal (regardless of one's moral opinion of the action) can create a greater willingness to take preventable risks.



michaeledward said:


> Maybe it's because I don't have a womb.



Could be... might not be; it's hard to say.


----------



## michaeledward (Oct 19, 2007)

Kacey, if that supposition were true, then the desire to stay within the law should have a noticable impact on the number of terminations when viewed from legal status of terminating a pregnancy. I thought the study showed us the legal status of abortion has no impact on the number of abortions performed. 

Can both of these ideas be true simultaneously? 

A - illegal terminations will lead to higher birth rates
B - illegal terminations have no impact on the number of abortions

Now, there are a couple of logic steps left out of this diagram. But, if I understand what you and Ray are saying, 
1 - the legal status of abortion will generate a lower frequency of contraceptive use, 
2 - which will in turn lead to a higher frequency of pregnancy, 
3 - which should result in either a) more live births or b) more terminations. 

As I understand it, these are the only two natural outcomes of a conception; a live birth or a terminated pregnancy. (For the sake of discussion, and with lack of evidence, I am willing to leave aside the natural aborted pregnancy or miscarriage). 

If we are to assume that 100% of unwanted conceptions will lead to either a live birth or an abortion, then the sum of those two outcomes must equal 100%. 

A + B = 100%

shesulsa informs us, through the scientific study held by the Guttmacher Institute that 'B' (the number of terminations) does not change based on the legal status of the procedure. So let's say that number is 25%  (you can choose any number you wish). 

A + 25% = 100%

It appears that Ray and you are arguing that 'A' would increase if the proceedure is illegal. I just don't see the way that this is possible. If 'B' is fixed at 25%, and the total is fixed at 100%, 'A' can not be altered; it is fixed in this example at 75% (of unwanted pregnancies will lead to live birth). 



As I understand it, 90% of the sexually active women in this country use some form of birth control. This group has 50% of the terminations performed in our country. This means that the birth control method either failed or was not practiced faithfully. A tragic consequence.

But, it also means that 50% of the terminations in our country are coming from the 10% of sexually active women who do not have a consistant form of birth control. 

If a society wanted to decrease the number of terminations, where is the "low hanging fruit"? If we addressed our energy to those in the 10% group, we could have a bigger impact on the number of terminations than if we attempted to influence the 90%.

So, why do we, through our government, promote 'abstinence only' sex education?


----------



## Kacey (Oct 19, 2007)

I am not attempting to "argue" anything; I am simply giving my interpretation of Ray's statement.

For myself, as I have said before, there are instances in which I consider abortion to be a reasonable option:  rape, incest, to preserve the health of the mother, to terminate a non-viable fetus, things of that nature.  I find the use of abortion as a replacement for contraception to be morally repugnant BUT that is _my_ opinion, based on my moral and ethical training, as impacted by my upbringing and culture; those whose cultural and familial upbringing are different will, perforce, have different opinions.


----------



## michaeledward (Oct 19, 2007)

The word "argue" is defined as 'to give reasons for or against something'. Providing your interpretation of Ray's statement is to put forth an arguement, intended or otherwise. 

And, if abortion is a poor choice for birth control, then it follows that steps should be taken to get birth control into the 10% of sexually active, fertile women who do not have a predetermined method of contraception. For it is this small subset of women who account for half of the terminations in our country. Proper education of, and easy access to, the various forms of contraception available should be paramount in efforts to reduce that which you describe as 'morally repugnant'. 

Half of the women who have abortions *are* using contraceptives. Do you find their actions morally repugnant?


----------



## Cruentus (Oct 19, 2007)

Question: Does anyone disagree with the notion that people have to be responsible for themselves, and that women need to be (and are perfectly capable of being) responsible for themselves, and since the baby ends up in her body, it behoves women to ensure that proper precautions (ie. preventative measures) are taken to prevent unwanted pregnancy?

I'm confused, because I got this negative rep (unsigned of course):

_a woman doesn't get pregnant alone - why is it her fault? Is a man incapable of wrapping his own penis??? _

Of course men need to be responsible too. But at the end of the day, the last line of defense is the woman. It is in HER body that the kid will grow inside, making her more responsible and with more power by default. Meaning that she can decide to get an abortion regardless of what the father says, and it is her body so she needs to be responsible to ensure that doesn't have to happen.

Is that a correct assessment, or am I somehow flawed in my thinking?

Furthermore, is there a lack of available birth control in this country that I am missing? I am not seeing the problem as a lack of available birth control. Sure, the pill isn't free. But Condoms are inexpensive and readily available. I see the problem as lack of education, and lack of personal responsibilty on the part of both young men and women.

Really, in a world where everyone wants to blame something else for their actions, I see that education needs to be on taking responsibility for yourself, not just sex ed.

But maybe I am wrong in my thinking... :idunno:


----------



## Ray (Oct 19, 2007)

michaeledward said:


> Providing your interpretation of Ray's statement is to put forth an arguement, intended or otherwise.
> 
> Half of the women who have abortions *are* using contraceptives. Do you find their actions morally repugnant?


Yikes, I'm being interpreted.

As for "avoiding unwanted pregnancies" If you've ever been young and in a heated tempting situation you may realize that some of our rational behaviors go out the window.  Certainly there are many situations we people get ourselves into when passion, drugs, peer pressure, and a host of things creep into our otherwise thinking rational brain.

Today there are more options for avoiding pregnancies.  It is also less stigmatizing for a woman to bear and keep her child; and abortion is legal.  Single women and their children comprise the largest segment of poor Americans; on the one hand we must help the poor; on the other we must do what we can to keep people from becoming poor.


----------



## elder999 (Oct 19, 2007)

Don't know if anybody quite got it this way, but the simple *fact* is that abortion rates have been in steady decline for the last 7 years-also according to the study by the Alan Guttmacher Institute.



> Overall, the U.S. abortion rate fell 19.3 percent between 1973 and 2000. One in five pregnancies end in abortion. In 2000, 1.3 million abortions were performed in the United States, down slightly from 1.36 million in 1996. The drop was seen in every state.
> 
> Renee Chelian, executive director of the Northland Family Planning abortion business in the Detroit area, attributes the decline to better use of contraception.
> 
> ...


 
Seen  on  this pro-life website 

Naturally, pro-lifers attribute this to ultrasound, more women not having abortions because they see their fetus, and increased restrictions in several states, while pro-choicers attribute it to increased education and use of contraceptives to prevent STDs among young people.


----------



## shesulsa (Oct 19, 2007)

Cruentus said:


> Question: Does anyone disagree with the notion that people have to be responsible for themselves, and that women need to be (and are perfectly capable of being) responsible for themselves, and since the baby ends up in her body, it behoves women to ensure that proper precautions (ie. preventative measures) are taken to prevent unwanted pregnancy?
> 
> I'm confused, because I got this negative rep (unsigned of course):
> 
> _a woman doesn't get pregnant alone - why is it her fault? Is a man incapable of wrapping his own penis??? _



I have been otherwise engaged and haven't been able to monitor this thread as carefully as I wished but I'm glad I stumbled in when I did.

I can't speak to the rep statement as far as ownership, but it brings about other things in my thoughts and please forgive me if this has already been discussed.

It behooves, IMO, *both parties* to protect themselves from unwanted pregnancy.  I am wont to make the point that if so many boys are "duped" into thinking their girl is on a hormone-based contraceptive, is using an internal barrier device (diaphragm, cervical cup, IUD) or low in her ovulatory cycle, why on earth aren't they taking precautions from being "duped?"  To me it's a bit like risk management - it's really everybody's job but when you start to tell people that, they roll their eyes.

It should be mathematically easier to control one egg per month than billions of sperm each ejaculation, however the location of delivery (forgive me) should be considered, I think.

While EVERY woman should value her body as a temple, we must also pepper that with the still retarded methods of women coming to grips with their sexuality.  Who must be the virgin? Who must wear the white?  And yet, she must be sultry and accomplished, educate herself further in the pleasuring of her man. 

Do you see what I'm getting at here?  Why are men not seeing the woman's body as a temple?  Would you tromp through church with muddy boots?  Or would you wear your rubbers in the rain and wear your clean, appropriate shoes in the House of God?  Surely you wouldn't go in barefoot?

And I'm sure there are plenty of men on this board who would claim to honor women upon their pedestals and agree with me that their daughters are precious as were their mothers and their wives but who order porn movies, subscribe to naughty mags and perhaps even buy the occasional hooker.

As long as we have this attitude that a woman's vagina is a commodity to be bought, sold, used and discarded, there will not be the endeavor to honor her, her body nor one's own body to use barrier contraception and nonoxynol-9 VOLUNTARILY by the man.



> Of course men need to be responsible too. But at the end of the day, the last line of defense is the woman. It is in HER body that the kid will grow inside, making her more responsible and with more power by default. Meaning that she can decide to get an abortion regardless of what the father says, and it is her body so she needs to be responsible to ensure that doesn't have to happen.
> 
> Is that a correct assessment, or am I somehow flawed in my thinking?


I think she does have more right than the man to decide upon the abortion, however there is still the nature of relationships between men and women and religion to be considered as well.  I think, upon a quick glance, that some people have already spoken to that here so I will refrain.



> Furthermore, is there a lack of available birth control in this country that I am missing? I am not seeing the problem as a lack of available birth control. Sure, the pill isn't free. But Condoms are inexpensive and readily available. I see the problem as lack of education, and lack of personal responsibilty on the part of both young men and women.


It's almost fatally embarassing for teens to go buy condoms and you can't get them at the free clinic without waiting the whole damn day and getting an exam.  In some states they won't without a parent's consent.  And ironically, while we don't want our teens having babies, we don't seem to want them to have birth control either.  I challenge everyone reading this who had children 12 and older to buy them a box of condoms and an appropriately-sized and appropriately-shaped plant food and teach their kids how AND WHEN to properly put a condom on, and HOW/WHEN TO PROPERLY TAKE ONE OFF!!!!

Our children will become more comfortable taking care of their bodies with barrier contraception if WE TEACH THEM THERE'S NOTHING TO BE ASHAMED OF.  Condoms may as well be considered vitamins.



> Really, in a world where everyone wants to blame something else for their actions, I see that education needs to be on taking responsibility for yourself, not just sex ed.



But that's just not enough, don't you see???  "Be responsible for yourself, wait for sex" doesn't play louder in the head than whatever's on the radio when teens are making out.

Nor do the facts of abortion regardless of legality seem to sway the Catholic Church nor any other anti-contraceptive religion.  They don't seem to keep men from raping women in Africa, they don't seem to bother the men in the middle east who are never punished for the crime (nay, the women are if they claim it), etc.



> But maybe I am wrong in my thinking... :idunno:


I think what we all must do is challenge our beliefs and our suppositions and put them up against the facts.

I think abortion is the taking of life.  However, I cannot see that we have progressed enough in this world to provide for all the unwanted and otherwise orphaned children we already have, let alone the millions more we would have if we could keep abortion from happening at all.

When the homeless orphaned unwanted children are a rarity ... THEN we should approach the legality of abortion.

But I cannot look at the lack of education, the lack of the respect for women's bodies, the sexual weaponry and grandiose expectations and condone the continued movement towards criminalizing abortion. I cannot.


----------



## michaeledward (Oct 19, 2007)

Ray said:


> Today there are more options for avoiding pregnancies.


 
This is a comparison that has only one side. What are your comparing to? What are those 'more options' and what were the 'less options' that existed at the other side of the equation. 



			
				Ray said:
			
		

> It is also less stigmatizing for a woman to bear and keep her child; and abortion is legal.


 
Again, comparied to what? And, the stigmatization effect does not seem to impact the frequency of abortions. 



			
				Ray said:
			
		

> Single women and their children comprise the largest segment of poor Americans; on the one hand we must help the poor; on the other we must do what we can to keep people from becoming poor.


 
And, how do you suppose we understake these two tasks .. helping the poor, and prevent people from becoming poor?


----------



## crushing (Oct 19, 2007)

elder999 said:


> Naturally, pro-lifers attribute this to ultrasound, more women not having abortions because they see their fetus, and increased restrictions in several states, while pro-choicers attribute it to increased education and use of contraceptives to prevent STDs among young people.


 
Sounds like they are partly on the same page as ultrasounds are part of the increased education over the years.


----------



## shesulsa (Oct 19, 2007)

Ray said:


> When abortion was illegal there were women who would avoid unwanted pregnancy and avoid having to have an abortion. The equivalent women in this group today may become unintentionally pregnant, believing that they can take care of it with an abortion, find out that they are not willing to have a legal abortion and thus become unwed mothers.
> 
> I'm talking about a group of women who wouldn't have had abortions when it was illegal and are not willing to have abortions when it become legal.
> 
> ...



I *think* I understand what you're saying but I'm not sure.  You said in your first sentence that before abortion was legal women would just avoid getting pregnant and if they couldn't they would avoid abortion??

:shrug:

Sir ... women have been having abortions since they have been getting pregnant.  They used to bring about miscarriage by intentional overwork or dehydration, self-starvation.  They would have "quilting bees" where not only would the women sew, but the women who were unavoidably pregnant and who could not provide for the coming child would get repeatedly punched and kicked in the stomach to bring about miscarriage.  When these things and other methods failed, they often tried dangerous concoctions which included sulfur, human hair and sometimes bits of poison, figuring if they could come close enough to death to expel the fetus and still recover that it would be worth the trouble. 

And then there are the poor women some have forgotten about - the crochet or knitting needles, six-penny nails, inserted sachets of poison, twigs, pokers, coathangers.  These are not invented tales ... these are morbid truths!

This should speak, if nothing else, to the desperation that drives women to torture themselves and endanger their very lives.


----------



## Ray (Oct 19, 2007)

michaeledward said:


> ...What are your comparing to?
> ...Again, comparied to what?


Sorry, I thought it was obvious; my comparision was between past and present America.


michaeledward said:


> And, how do you suppose we understake these two tasks .. helping the poor, and prevent people from becoming poor?


You will do a great work among the people. From your resources, give. From your knowledge, share.


----------



## elder999 (Oct 19, 2007)

shesulsa said:


> Sir ... women have been having abortions since they have been getting pregnant. .


 

There are a variety of herbal teas that can be used to effectively (though somewhat dangerously) induce miscarriage in the first trimester, and they have been used for possibly thousands of years.


----------



## Ray (Oct 19, 2007)

shesulsa said:


> I *think* I understand what you're saying but I'm not sure. You said in your first sentence that before abortion was legal women would just avoid getting pregnant and if they couldn't they would avoid abortion??


I repeat the idea postulated by someone else, I thought it was an interesting observation which may (or may not) explain some other trends that occurred in American society. 

I agreed with the premise that the legal status of abortion may not have changed its rate. And I did not pass judgment on those who did or did not choose to have an abortion. Nor do I look down on those who may have used tremendously barbaric and unsafe methods to end a pregnancy when it was not legal (I don't mean abortion itself, but the way it was performed and the where it was performed when illegal).

Neither do I say that abortion should be illegal or not. It is a very tough issue for me in many ways. When I was younger, some positions that I held were easy to hold. Having gained experience (personal and by observation) I now find it difficult to make choices that apply to others...but it has become much easier to make choices that apply to me.


----------



## shesulsa (Oct 19, 2007)

Ray said:


> I repeat the idea postulated by someone else, I thought it was an interesting observation which may (or may not) explain some other trends that occurred in American society.
> 
> I agreed with the premise that the legal status of abortion may not have changed its rate. And I did not pass judgment on those who did or did not choose to have an abortion. Nor do I look down on those who may have used tremendously barbaric and unsafe methods to end a pregnancy when it was not legal (I don't mean abortion itself, but the way it was performed and the where it was performed when illegal).
> 
> Neither do I say that abortion should be illegal or not. It is a very tough issue for me in many ways. When I was younger, some positions that I held were easy to hold. Having gained experience (personal and by observation) I now find it difficult to make choices that apply to others...but it has become much easier to make choices that apply to me.


Thanks for the clarification and I hope you didn't take my post as attacking; it was not meant as such.

I posted earlier I have not read through the thread very carefully for a day or so.

:asian:


----------



## Kacey (Oct 19, 2007)

michaeledward said:


> Half of the women who have abortions *are* using contraceptives. Do you find their actions morally repugnant?


I find their actions to be none of my business, unless they ask me personally for my opinion.  I gave my opinion for myself, based on my own personal values - others, as I said, have different values based on their upbringing, culture, and current relationships.

Whatever your opinion on abortion, advocate for laws that you find appropriate - and live with the ones you get.  Talk to your friends, family, coworkers, and so on - get different perspectives, have conversations - and make your own decision.  That's what I did, and I am only expressing my opinion because this is an appropriate forum to do so:  the question was raised and I responded to it.

If you don't agree with abortions, don't have one (if you are female); take appropriate precautions against unwanted pregnancy (both male and female).  Certainly, circumstances can cause even the most effective form of birth control to fail.  Talk to your partner *before* engaging in sexual activity regardless of where you are in your beliefs, know what you would do in case circumstances make it necessary to take action *before* you are faced with a serious issue, one that affects the people involved emotionally, physically, mentally - because this one issue can be a deal breaker.  But if it doesn't involve you personally - why is it any of your business what people you don't know choose to do with their reproductive processes?


----------



## Makalakumu (Oct 19, 2007)

Cruentus said:


> Question: Does anyone disagree with the notion that people have to be responsible for themselves, and that women need to be (and are perfectly capable of being) responsible for themselves, and since the baby ends up in her body, it behoves women to ensure that proper precautions (ie. preventative measures) are taken to prevent unwanted pregnancy?


 
OK, a couple of points, is it irresponsible of a woman who has an unwanted pregnancy to use abortion as a contraceptive?  I don't see how a woman's decision to terminate a pregnancy is irresponsible now why it should even cast her in a light that would even hint at such.

Also, this might be a new thread topic, but I was wondering the other day just how much say a man has in this topic.  What if he impregnates a woman, he wants her to have an abortion and she refuses?  Or if she wants an abortion and he does not?  Legally, doesn't the woman's body take precedence?  How does that jive with man's rights and responsibility?


----------



## crushing (Oct 19, 2007)

upnorthkyosa said:


> OK, a couple of points, is it irresponsible of a woman who has an unwanted pregnancy to use abortion as a contraceptive? I don't see how a woman's decision to terminate a pregnancy is irresponsible now why it should even cast her in a light that would even hint at such.


 
How can an abortion be used as a contraceptive?  I can understand how pills, barriers, spermicides and the like are contraceptives, but how can an abortion be one?



upnorthkyosa said:


> Also, this might be a new thread topic, but I was wondering the other day just how much say a man has in this topic. What if he impregnates a woman, he wants her to have an abortion and she refuses? Or if she wants an abortion and he does not? Legally, doesn't the woman's body take precedence? How does that jive with man's rights and responsibility?


 
Good question.  I touched on this earlier in the thread.  And the negative rep comment given Cruentus had me thinking about it again.  I'm not a lawyer, but it seems to me that the man has no pre-natal legal standing despite being a 50% contributor to the collaborative creative effort.  If he wants the baby and she doesn't, too bad.  If she does want it, but he doesn't he may have a financial responsibility for nearly two decades.

Maybe someone familiar with the law can shed some light on the lack of balance between rights and responsibilities of the male co-creator?


----------



## elder999 (Oct 19, 2007)

upnorthkyosa said:


> OK, a couple of points, is it irresponsible of a woman who has an unwanted pregnancy to use abortion as a contraceptive? I don't see how a woman's decision to terminate a pregnancy is irresponsible now why it should even cast her in a light that would even hint at such.
> 
> Also, this might be a new thread topic, but I was wondering the other day just how much say a man has in this topic. What if he impregnates a woman, he wants her to have an abortion and she refuses? Or if she wants an abortion and he does not? Legally, doesn't the woman's body take precedence? How does that jive with man's rights and responsibility?


 

For the record, I'm morally not in favor of abortion-so I'll never have one.
Nor would I choose to be party to one. Also for the record, I believe it pretty much is a woman's choice, and one she has a right to-if I were to be involved, I'd take the position of being against it, but there would be no argument, because I'd basically have none-it's her decisioin. 

Of course, I've already got kids, don't intend to have anymore-established that my wife truly didn't want kids before we got married, and got a vasectomy. Pretty much the limits of my responsibility right there.....

When my first wife died, I wound up being the sole caretaker for a variety of responsibilities most fathers probably abdicate to their wives. Needless to say, the advent of puberty was an interesting experience for both my daughter and myself.Thank God I had my sisters help with that one! Likewise, the numerous discussions we had about sexual behavior, protection, morality, and yes, abortion were interesting and enlightening for both of us-mostly becuase I've always tried to treat my kids as adults, and let them know that I respect and value their opinions. I like to think that my daughter will never be in the position of making that choice, but I also like to think-and wanted her to know-that the choice is hers, without any judgement from me (she's almost 22 now, so it's really none of my business) and that I'd raised her to have enough information and _personal moral clarity_ to make a decision that *she* can live with.


----------



## Makalakumu (Oct 19, 2007)

crushing said:


> How can an abortion be used as a contraceptive? I can understand how pills, barriers, spermicides and the like are contraceptives, but how can an abortion be one?


 
Maybe the word contraceptive was a poor choice.  Perhaps a better idea of what I was talking about is population control.  Birth control being one step, abortion another, and finally sterylization.  I wonder if one could rationalize a continuum between them so that it becomes somewhat like the force continuum we MAists talk about.  I can definitely see how increasing levels of invasion could be construed.


----------



## Kreth (Oct 19, 2007)

upnorthkyosa said:


> Maybe the word contraceptive was a poor choice.


Not really. Unfortunately, there are those who consider abortion a viable form of birth control.


----------



## Gordon Nore (Oct 19, 2007)

Kreth said:


> What's always mystified me is that many of these hardcore RTL activists are men. :idunno:



Not surprising to me at all. Abortion -- as a legislative issue -- is about control over women. Those who fervently push for RTL are statistically more likely to vote in favour of the death penalty. In my observation, they are the first cry foul when public funding is expended on welfare, which might actually be used to _keep_ these children alive.



> [Abortion opponents] love little babies, as long as they're in somebody else's uterus.
> 
> Joycelyn Elders, former U.S. Surgeon General, _Redbook Magazine_ (August, 1994).



Elders was right on the money and got fired for injecting honesty into the discussion. So people essentially talk around this topic. Pro Choice, for instance, warns us that when abortion is illegal, women will be forced to seek out back room abortionist. That's certainly true, but it's irrelevant in the face of the fact that we're still calling upon legislators to decide what a woman can or cannot do with her own uterus. To all intents and purposes, a woman's uterus is not her own.

Then there's the feverish parsing of the issue: For example, _Abortion's ok *if *the woman's life is at risk, *if *she is the victim of rape, *if *the child is going to be seriously disabled._ In other words disabled children, or those conceived as the result of a violent, criminal assault, are less precious than those conceived in a loving relationship. We still come back to this notion that someone has to decide what is best for women and their children.

My favourites are endless apocryphal stories of women who would rather have an abortion than use birth control. Do such people exist? Probably, but who gives a squirt? What if we denied surgery to people who eat poorly, never exercise, drink too much, or smoke?


----------



## crushing (Oct 19, 2007)

Gordon Nore said:


> Not surprising to me at all. Abortion -- as a legislative issue -- is about control over women.


 


That claim is ridiculous to me, and I'm not surprised to see it thrown out there on an issue that can be so emotional for many people.  If women were being prevented from doing anything that ONLY affected them, you would have a point.


----------



## Cruentus (Oct 20, 2007)

shesulsa said:


> It behooves, IMO, *both parties* to protect themselves from unwanted pregnancy. I am wont to make the point that if so many boys are "duped" into thinking their girl is on a hormone-based contraceptive, is using an internal barrier device (diaphragm, cervical cup, IUD) or low in her ovulatory cycle, why on earth aren't they taking precautions from being "duped?" To me it's a bit like risk management - it's really everybody's job but when you start to tell people that, they roll their eyes.


 
I agree with you there. I mean, of course it is both the man and womans responsibility. It just goes to show how emotionally charged people are in these discussions, as I never implied otherwise, yet it would seem that someone thought so (hence negative rep and comment).

The only thing that I had been saying was that unless we are talking about situations of rape, there are no victims here. If a girl willingly has sex and get's pregnant, she has no one else to blame but her self. Same is true for the guy who assumes a girl is on the pill, only to find out otherwise.



> It should be mathematically easier to control one egg per month than billions of sperm each ejaculation, however the location of delivery (forgive me) should be considered, I think.
> 
> While EVERY woman should value her body as a temple, we must also pepper that with the still retarded methods of women coming to grips with their sexuality. Who must be the virgin? Who must wear the white? And yet, she must be sultry and accomplished, educate herself further in the pleasuring of her man.
> 
> ...


 
You bring up an interesting point that hasn't been brought up yet; and that is the double standards and disrespect that our culture has towards women that lead to all sorts of flawed thinking in matters like these. 

I say cultural thing, because I think this goes beyond what "men" think about women's bodies. For every porno that a man goes to download are willing women with webcams. How many young girls out there are willing to disrespect themselves or their peers by using their bodies and sex as leverage, as evident if one were to walk into any bar around the country or watch any reality show?

I am just saying that I believe that this is a social problem that goes beyond "man" and "woman," but is in interesting one as it pertains to this topic.



> It's almost fatally embarassing for teens to go buy condoms and you can't get them at the free clinic without waiting the whole damn day and getting an exam. In some states they won't without a parent's consent. And ironically, while we don't want our teens having babies, we don't seem to want them to have birth control either. I challenge everyone reading this who had children 12 and older to buy them a box of condoms and an appropriately-sized and appropriately-shaped plant food and teach their kids how AND WHEN to properly put a condom on, and HOW/WHEN TO PROPERLY TAKE ONE OFF!!!!
> 
> Our children will become more comfortable taking care of their bodies with barrier contraception if WE TEACH THEM THERE'S NOTHING TO BE ASHAMED OF. Condoms may as well be considered vitamins.


 
I don't really think that the cost of condoms and nonoxynol-9 is the problem here, as they aren't out of the price range of other things that teens can afford, regardless of economic status.

What I do think is fatally embarassing is the multitude of adults who are uncomfortable with a discussion about birth control, and a demonstration as you described. How can a parent expect their kid to not be embarrassed to take proper measures when they themselves are embarrassed about a simple discussion? 



> But that's just not enough, don't you see??? "Be responsible for yourself, wait for sex" doesn't play louder in the head than whatever's on the radio when teens are making out.
> 
> Nor do the facts of abortion regardless of legality seem to sway the Catholic Church nor any other anti-contraceptive religion. They don't seem to keep men from raping women in Africa, they don't seem to bother the men in the middle east who are never punished for the crime (nay, the women are if they claim it), etc.


 
Whoa.  Hold on there, I am not saying that "be responsible for yourself" has to mean an abstance program. Of course, abstance should be included as a priority in these discussions, but being responsible goes far beyond simply "just saying no." And of course, this isn't the only answer. But I do think that teaching personal responsibility is a huge part of this.

In a world where adults are so quick to put the blame and point the finger to others for their own doing with mundane issues, how can we expect kids to take responsibility for their own bodies and sexual behavior and birth control? So I think that "personal responsibility" is a bigger factor here then we might want to admit.



> I think what we all must do is challenge our beliefs and our suppositions and put them up against the facts.


 
Couldn't agree with that statement more...


----------



## Cruentus (Oct 20, 2007)

upnorthkyosa said:


> OK, a couple of points, is it irresponsible of a woman who has an unwanted pregnancy to use abortion as a contraceptive? I don't see how a woman's decision to terminate a pregnancy is irresponsible now why it should even cast her in a light that would even hint at such.


 
Yes, I think that it is irresponsible for a woman to use abortion as contraceptive. If anything, for the simple fact of the medical risks or physical and psychological damage. Then if you throw in the idea that some people think that abortion is murder, that further complicates matters. I think that women who take abortion lightly and use it in lew of controceptive and taking proper birth control measures are being disrespectful to their own bodies, and disrespectful to women around the country who face real problems with this difficult choice.



> Also, this might be a new thread topic, but I was wondering the other day just how much say a man has in this topic. What if he impregnates a woman, he wants her to have an abortion and she refuses? Or if she wants an abortion and he does not? Legally, doesn't the woman's body take precedence? How does that jive with man's rights and responsibility?


 
Just as a woman has certain responsibilities, and risks associated with her choices, the man has a different set of responsibilities and risks as well. The fact that it is the womans body, and not his, and that she has all the power of the decision once pregnant is simply a fact that the man has to deal with. Just as the woman has to deal with the fact that a man can ditch her in a time of need, the man has to deal with the fact that the woman can choose to have or not have an abortion regardless of his opinions.


----------



## Big Don (Oct 20, 2007)

Abortion is not a contraceptive! Contraceptives PREVENT conception, abortion eliminates the result of conception. There is a difference there. Words have meanings.


----------



## elder999 (Oct 20, 2007)

Big Don said:


> Abortion is not a contraceptive! Contraceptives PREVENT conception, abortion eliminates the result of conception. There is a difference there. Words have meanings.


 

While I don't disagree with you in principle, _contra_ is a Latin preposition meaning _against._. WHile the conventional, accepted definition of "contraceptive" is something capable of _preventing_ conception, the _meaning_ of the word is literall "against conception," which abortion certainly is, just after the fact.

SInce you were saying that "Words have meanings," and all.....

If we substitute the words "birth control" for "contraceptive," though, we probably can say that "there are women who use abortion as a form of _birth control.."_


----------



## Bob Hubbard (Oct 23, 2007)

The arguments concerning abortion have and always will divide.  Most of those arguing on either side of the fence, have no first hand knowledge of what it really and truely involves.

Those arguing against it, most often fail to consider the costs, both financial and emotional involved, either in the act of abortion it self, or in deciding against it.  They make broad condemnations regarding premarital sex, youth and not believing in the same imaginary man in the sky as they do. They discount the emotional and often heart wrenching experience of those considering it. They ignore the costs, again both financial and emotional in deciding to raise a child to term, and perhaps through it's first 2 decades of life. They will make assinine suggestions like "just give it up for adoption", again ignoring both the financial and emotional costs in that decision.

Those arguing for it, choose to ignore custom, faith, and family. They often will ignore the same financial, physical and emotional considerations as their opposition.

The simple fact is, more than half the people arguing are incapable of ever having one.  A majority of those capable of having one, will never be in a position where it even becomes a consideration.

The only people the decision matters to, is the woman who is for what ever reason considering it, and that potential childs father. 

There are many reasons why someone would consider ending a pregnancy. some are truthfully frivilious, but many others are not.  Which is which, should be determined by those involved in that painful decision.  Not some anonymous person with no real knowledge or understanding of the situation, and certainly not by some so called 'lawmaker' or religious zelot acting out of their own bias and ignorance.

I personally, don't believe in it, however, it is not my place to decide what is right for anyone else.  If and when the decision involves me I would give my thoughts to her. In the end, it is however her decision, since unlike a seahorse, I as a male cannot carry a child.  In any event, such things should be private, and not done in public.


----------



## heretic888 (Oct 24, 2007)

Bob Hubbard said:


> Those arguing for it, choose to ignore custom, faith, and family. They often will ignore the same financial, physical and emotional considerations as their opposition.


 
Bob,

With all due respect, just who exactly argues "for" abortion?? Its not like anyone here is advocating forcing pregnant mothers to have abortions. You seem to be using a Straw Man argument here.

The pro-choice argument is not necessarily that abortion is "right" but that it is a personal choice left to the mother and her family. The overriding difference between pro-choicers and pro-lifers in this debate is that the latter believe their personal beliefs should be legally imposed on every woman in the country.

Laterz.


----------



## CoryKS (Oct 24, 2007)

heretic888 said:


> Bob,
> 
> With all due respect, just who exactly argues "for" abortion?? Its not like anyone here is advocating forcing pregnant mothers to have abortions. You seem to be using a Straw Man argument here.
> 
> ...


 
You're arguing semantics.  One can use pro-abortion to describe someone who is for the legalization of it, not that should be imposed on unwilling participants.  As a comparison, you hear people use the term pro-death penalty to describe a person who thinks this should be a legal option for certain criminals.  It doesn't mean they want to empty the prisons into a mass grave.


----------



## heretic888 (Oct 24, 2007)

CoryKS said:


> You're arguing semantics.



Not really.

As I stated before, the overriding issue here is that one group wants their personal beliefs to be legally imposed on the populace while the other group thinks it is a personal decision best left to the woman and her loved ones. Drawing analogies to the death penalty is, at best, a Red Herring.

This has nothing to do with the terminology used to describe individuals, as many who oppose a legislative banning of abortion also find abortion to be distasteful on a personal level. Its a Straw Man argument to suggest such persons are "for" abortion. What they are "for" is that the mother and her family are the ones that make the decision, not the government.

This is similar to how some religious conservatives interpret a removal of official "school prayer" time during public schools' morning announcements to be some kind of banning of prayer of any kind in schools (you may do so on your own at any time you wish). It is the same groups of people in both cases and all they *really* want is their personal beliefs to be imposed on everybody by the government.

I mean, really....


----------



## CoryKS (Oct 24, 2007)

heretic888 said:


> Not really.


 
Yes, really.  It was clear from the context that Bob was referring to those who are for the legalization of abortion, regardless of their position on the morality of it, rather than to people who believe that "abortion rawks!!!"  So, Straw Man declined.  The analogy to the death penalty had nothing to do with the topic of the death penalty itself, but rather the use of pro- or con- labels to identify those who want it to be legal or not.  So, Red Herring declined.


----------



## heretic888 (Oct 24, 2007)

CoryKS said:


> Yes, really.  It was clear from the context that Bob was referring to those who are for the legalization of abortion, regardless of their position on the morality of it, rather than to people who believe that "abortion rawks!!!"  So, Straw Man declined.  The analogy to the death penalty had nothing to do with the topic of the death penalty itself, but rather the use of pro- or con- labels to identify those who want it to be legal or not.  So, Red Herring declined.



Hi Cory,

Perhaps you can explain to me why a person who supports the "legalization of abortion" (a rather curious choice of words on your part) would also "choose to ignore custom, faith, and family" (as Bob put it)?? Why would leaving the issue of abortion up to the mother and her loved ones instead of the government in any way impugn "custom, faith, and family"??

Now, perhaps Bob misspoke or perhaps I am simply misunderstanding him (and, if so, I apologize). However, taking his words at face value, this is clearly a Straw Man argument. If there is some meaning that I am not perceiving, I am sure he will enlighten me shortly.

I just don't see how leaving abortion up to one's own personal choice (as opposed to the government deciding for you) somehow _prevents_ you from acting in accord with the wishes of "custom, faith, and family".


----------



## Bob Hubbard (Oct 24, 2007)

heretic888 said:


> Bob,
> 
> With all due respect, just who exactly argues "for" abortion?? Its not like anyone here is advocating forcing pregnant mothers to have abortions. You seem to be using a Straw Man argument here.
> 
> ...


Didn't say anyone here was.  I just posted a blanket bit, in part because of this discussion, and in part due to some stuff that's been flooding my email from a list I'm on.  So, ignore the bits that don't fit this topic.


----------



## heretic888 (Oct 24, 2007)

heretic888 said:
			
		

> If there is some meaning that I am not perceiving, I am sure he will enlighten me shortly.





			
				Bob Hubbard said:
			
		

> Didn't say anyone here was.  I just posted a blanket bit, in part because of this discussion, and in part due to some stuff that's been flooding my email from a list I'm on.  So, ignore the bits that don't fit this topic.




Consider me enlightened!


----------

