10 Reasons The World Thinks The US Is Crazy Re: Abortion

[Juliette]

Maybe people should choose not to **Filtered** and get pregnant until they can handle the consequences responsibly thus removing the choice to commit murder or not. Abortion is a hideous crime and its murder and sadly big business, **Filtered** all you liberals and pro choicers..you have no clue WTH kind of destruction thats been wrought on this country and now the world. Choices have consequences,,CHOOSE to do the right thing instead of choosing to cover your ass after "oops" happens. Idiots.

You are conveniently ignoring the equally big crime of rape, Charles.

[jedi~tank]

Maybe people should choose not to **Filtered** and get pregnant until they can handle the consequences responsibly thus removing the choice to commit murder or not. Abortion is a hideous crime and its murder and sadly big business, **Filtered** all you liberals and pro choicers..you have no clue WTH kind of destruction thats been wrought on this country and now the world. Choices have consequences,,CHOOSE to do the right thing instead of choosing to cover your ass after "oops" happens. Idiots.

You are conveniently ignoring the equally big crime of rape, Name removed by request of user..

Ok, excluding special circumstances

I have a tendancy I know to broad brush topics like this without leaving in depth details of what my comments are based on....

In a nut shell the principals of the movement were fine, but the smoke and mirror of it all was driven by business..the market and experimentation of the unborn...remember roev wade? Read her reflections on the aftermath of that as she had years to see the fruits of that labor and how it became an abomination to humanity but is now accepted as the norm.

I fully agree with the fathers rights, the mothers rights, but what about that babies rights?

[Juliette]

I am going to antagonize you, Carlos, and say a foetus -until 21 weeks and proven self-awareness- is nothing more than a parasitic tumor. A tumor which, at that, forms a source of extreme stress on a human person and, after birth, even more so.
How is allowing that cancer to reach 'life' humane?



(Glad to see you are allowing what you defined as murder under special circumstances. Is this like capital punishment?)

[jedi~tank]

You cant antagonize me, what does self aware have to do with it? and comparing a fetus to a cancer tumor is...well its......

And my special circumstances are determined by my creator, and its those of which I speak, not what some group of lawmakers say it is.

[Psyko]

Clearly that article is insane comparing women to animals and endangering life, didnt read it all as I cant stomach more than a few minutes of right wing church nutters but that was clearly the way it was going.



For a more sensible question on the subject of abortion

What about the rights of the father ?

How is it right that a father can have his unborn child killed against his will just because the mother doesnt want it

Takes two too tango yet only one currently gets the choice over the outcome

It's actually a giant article written by a liberal woman bashing the right wing church nutters and their laws.

The father has no right to force a woman to carry a child to term. Also, if you provide that right to a man it can give rapists who impregnate their victims the right to block the woman from abortion (likely leading to suicide). It gets sketchy all-around if you allow men to assert their rights over a woman's right to decide how/when she will be a mother.

As to my response to the article, it will have to wait until I'm not at work or exhausted. I do think Jack should post his opinions before I respond.

Yeah didnt read much, guess I read the bits were she was quoting the right wing church nutters lol Kinda of a skimmer when reading, look for the interesting or provocative bits.

On rapists ( which I would assume to be a tiny minority of the babies terminated ), I would agree the father should have no rights.

Agreed.

BUT

In the vast majority of normal cases I think the father should have a say

If either sexual partner is so dead set against having children they should have used contraception. Once they have both decided to go ahead without it they with that decision accept the consequences.

Contraception is not 100%. There are still hundreds of women becoming pregnant each year despite using contraception.

Frankly Im sick of the 'rights' subjects, every time I hear it seems to be giving more rights to either women or to some minority group often through what is called 'positive discrimination'. Positive discrimination has nothing to do with equal rights, it takes away rights from one group to appease another, and it always seems to be the White Male that gets screwed over.

I'm not fond of the 'rights' arguments, either. However, taking the rights away from the woman so the man can be a father is another example of taking rights away from one group to appease the another. The difference is jobs can be found elsewhere, women can't hand the zygote/embryo over and move on with their lives. There are hospital bills, prescription costs, maternity leave, the abruption of their lives, having to quite/put off school, and many other side effects that would come with forcing a woman to bear a man's child. Not to be crass, but men can just go knock up another woman if they want a kid.

Fathers should have the same rights as Mothers.

Father's can't give birth. Until they can, they shouldn't have the right to choice.

Anyone who has experience of them knows that family courts are the only legal form of sexual discrimination left in the UK. The assumption that women automatically make better parents is BS, and the lack of enforcement when it comes to Fathers access to their children is a disgrace.

It's not just in the UK. Courts are only recently coming around to the idea that fathers can be better parents than the mothers. There is a similar lack of enforcement in regard to domestic abuse cases where the woman is the abuser.

Back on the Abortion subject, why should 'Pro-Choice' only apply to women, wheres the mans choice & voice ? Having a Pole instead of a Hole dont mean we dont have feelings or want kids. If neither partner want a child fine, but if either one does and is willing to take on custody and raise that child then killing the child is sickening.

See above.

As for Maintenance or Child Support, the door swings both ways, I believe men ( or woman ) not raising the child should support their child regardless of if they wanted them, both men and women need to accept responsibility for not using contraception. I dont see why other tax payers should foot the bill for it.

I agree.

I am going to antagonize you, Carlos, and say a foetus -until 21 weeks and proven self-awareness- is nothing more than a parasitic tumor. A tumor which, at that, forms a source of extreme stress on a human person and, after birth, even more so.
How is allowing that cancer to reach 'life' humane?



(Glad to see you are allowing what you defined as murder under special circumstances. Is this like capital punishment?)

I agree completly.

I kind of love how people abhor the "murder" of a fetus...but only if it's anything but rape...and maybe incest. Thou shalt not murder...unless it needs to be done?

It's like they can't pick which side of the argument they are on. Or maybe they just don't want to seem like an unsympathetic monster by forcing women to bare the offspring of their rapist.

Allow it or don't allow it. If you tell a woman she can only have an abortion if it was rape, think of how many women will claim that is the case. We really don't need false cases of rape just to allow a woman to have an abortion; that belittles the trauma of women who are actually raped.

[Jack]

BUT

In the vast majority of normal cases I think the father should have a say

If either sexual partner is so dead set against having children they should have used contraception. Once they have both decided to go ahead without it they with that decision accept the consequences.

Contraception is not 100%. There are still hundreds of women becoming pregnant each year despite using contraception.

It's called taking responsibility for your actions. Feminists seem to be under the impression that women should be allowed to shrug responsibility whenever it suits them, but that men shouldn't be allowed the same privileges.

I'm not fond of the 'rights' arguments, either. However, taking the rights away from the woman so the man can be a father is another example of taking rights away from one group to appease the another. The difference is jobs can be found elsewhere, women can't hand the zygote/embryo over and move on with their lives. There are hospital bills, prescription costs, maternity leave, the abruption of their lives, having to quite/put off school, and many other side effects that would come with forcing a woman to bear a man's child. Not to be crass, but men can just go knock up another woman if they want a kid.

But a woman can be allowed to get knocked up and force a man that didn't want a kid to bear the burden for 18 years? It's easier for a woman to fool a man into knocking her up than it is for a man to fool a woman into getting knocked up. How is it fair that a woman can force a man to be burdened for 18 years, but a man can not force the woman to bear it for 9 months?

Father's can't give birth. Until they can, they shouldn't have the right to choice.

And women can't get pregnant without a man. For there to be true equality, the man must have some say in the pregnancy.

I kind of love how people abhor the "murder" of a fetus...but only if it's anything but rape...and maybe incest. Thou shalt not murder...unless it needs to be done?

Murder is murder is murder. Except when it's not murder. Not all killings are murder. In the case of rapes, as I've said before, I have no intention of getting involved with that debate. But you've put forth a damned good argument for prohibiting rape abortions. Atleast giving them special privileges over other cases. There is much to be said about rape cases, a lot of it will probably piss off a great majority of people. This is really one of those debates where I take the "I'll cross that bridge when I get there, but pray I never do" path. It's a wholly different situation than a woman opting for an abortion because she decides she wants to shrug off responsibility. People need to take responsibility for their actions.

Capital punishment is not murder, war is rarely murder, self defense is not murder. Abortions when it is medically necessary to prevent death and possibly serious bodily injury is not murder, it's self defense. Self defense does not require that the aggressor always be a criminal, they can be innocent of any wrong doing. But because of circumstance wholly outside of their control, they immediate threat to life and limb. It's not pleasant, it might make you sick to your stomach. But in all honesty, when is self defense ever a pleasant experience?


Personally, life begins before birth, after conception. If you can show me conclusive evidence of when exactly life starts, then I'd support abortion upto that point.


On a side note, I'm still waiting for Psyko to refute my arguments about the content of the article. Do it, Psyko, tell me I'm wrong.

[Jack]

Copypasta for Psyko~

This is article is full of lies and misleading garbage.

#1, don't really know how true this one is. The source quoted says largely the same things this author does. If it is true, then that is a crap law and needs to be amended. But I doubt the veracity of this story.

#2 The author attempts to make it appear as though the laws prohibit abortions in life or death situations, where really what she references are women that die from ILLEGAL abortions. Sorry, but I have zero sympathy for someone that is killed while doing something illegal. Perhaps we should create a law providing body armor to all home invaders so as to reduce their chance of death as well.

#3 Here the author opens her statement by claiming that women are being arrested for the heinous crime of a miscarriage. What the author fails to mention, is that the woman was a coke addict at the time of her pregnancy. Last I checked, negligence was still a crime. It would seem as though the author desires to carve out an exception in negligence laws granting women immunity. Talk about creating a special class.

#4 Involuntary my ass. They are given a choice, no one is holding a gun to their head and forcing them to have an abortion. Unless this law also applies to abortions that are medically necessary. In which case, the law is utter crap and needs to be amended. But again, I seriously doubt that.

#5 This one is a little different. In one hand, if it were my wife, the decision would be hers. However, the argument you gave for it can easily be flipped around. So it's a stupid point to make.

#6 is little more than fear mongering based on conjecture founded on theoretical technology. It also, even if indirectly, argues against the development of new, life saving technology. Again, basing the opinion on conjecture founded on theoretical technology that is still long ways off. Further, the author pits women against men. Something she's really been doing this whole time, but this instance is the most hypocritical. The author wants the right to abortion, but wants to deny the right of the father to keep the child. It would seem to me that this is a great middle ground solution. The mother no longer has to be pregnant, and the father gets to keep their child. Reproduction rights have been all about the women, and have completely ignored the fact that it takes two to reproduce. Should there not be equal rights?

#7 I don't have much to say here. 24hrs wont kill you, but in the event that it could, then it obviously shouldn't be required and probably isn't.

#8 is more of an employer vs employee rights issue, not so much an abortion issue. I strongly support the 2nd amendment and constitutional carry movements, but I would say the same thing if the topic was whether or not an employer could prohibit their employees from carrying.

#9 Like #8, is not an abortion issue. It's a state vs fed issue. Texas rejects a lot of federal aid, not just health related.

#10 see #8.

[Psyko]

First, I will quote portion of the article being discussed, then I shall include Jack's comments followed by my response.

1. Making women carry still-born fetuses to full term because cows and pigs do. This week, Mr England, you supported a bill, the net effect of which, taken tandem with other restrictions, will result in doctors and women being unable to make private, medically-based, critical care decisions and some women being effectively forced to carry their dead or dying fetuses. Women are different from farm animals, Mr. England, and this bill, requiring a woman to carry a dead or dying fetus is inhumane and unethical. By forcing a woman to do this, you are violating her right not to be subjected to inhuman treatment and tortured. And, yes, involuntarily carrying a dead fetus to term, although not torture to you or to a pig, is torture for a woman. It is also a violation of her bodily integrity and a threat to her life and as such violates her right to life.

This is article is full of lies and misleading garbage.

#1, don't really know how true this one is. The source quoted says largely the same things this author does. If it is true, then that is a crap law and needs to be amended. But I doubt the veracity of this story.

Firstly. Here is the original statement by that Georgian Representative. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eeEfVLPWPvw
And a link to the changes made in the bill (HB954) which was soon-after passed by the Georgia legislature. http://www1.legis.ga.gov/legis/2011_12/ ... /hb954.htm

What it sums up is that an abortion may not occur after 20 weeks unless it is a "medical emergency". Legally defined as any medical reason which may cause the death or permanent disability of the mother or the death of an unborn child (like a twin).

What I doubt is that Soraya Chemaly (the author of the original article) read through the legal document of the bill before becoming angry and blasting it in her article. However, she is correct in that this bill does not allow for the abortion of a dead fetus unless it meets one of the "medical emergency" requirements. So yes, they are saying a woman will be forced to carry a dead fetus until miscarriage unless it's going to kill/disable her. The woman is also unable to abort the fetus if informed the child will not live long after birth and will need to birth the dying baby knowing it will only live a few short moments/hours.

If a woman induces an abortion through any medical, chemical, or physical means after the fetus is 20 weeks old, she will go to prison for 1-10 years. That is a pretty broad range. My bet is it will pretty much always be a standard 10 year sentence.

2. Consigning women to death to save a fetus. Abortions save women's lives. "Let women die" bills are happening all over the country. There is no simple or pretty way to put this. Every day, all over the world, women die because they do not have access to safe abortions. Yet, here we are, returning to the dark ages of maternal sacrifice. Do really have to type this sentence: this is a violation of women's fundamental right to life.

#2 The author attempts to make it appear as though the laws prohibit abortions in life or death situations, where really what she references are women that die from ILLEGAL abortions. Sorry, but I have zero sympathy for someone that is killed while doing something illegal. Perhaps we should create a law providing body armor to all home invaders so as to reduce their chance of death as well.

Actually, what she is referring to are laws which prohibit medical coverage in health care plans for abortions if their health care coverage provider receives any funds from the government in any way/shape/form, be it medical premiums paid by an employer which receives government funds (like in a state/federal contract) or funding for a different program provided by the same provider. Essentially saying Planned Parenthood can't perform abortions and still get federal funding. (See the US House Bill here: http://www.govtrack.us/congress/bills/112/hr358/text as an example). The same bill also prevents entities like the Catholic Church to be discriminated against for not providing abortions.

Thus, women will seek abortions where they can. Typically at much higher cost with much less competence on the part of the doctors performing the abortion. More of them will die than they would without these bills being enacted all over the country (each with their own provisions; I only examined the federal bill).

3. Criminalizing pregnancy and miscarriages and arresting, imprisoning and charging women who miscarry with murder, like Rennie Gibbs in Mississippi or at least 40 other similar cases in Alabama or like Bei Bei Shuai, a woman who is now imprisoned, is charged with murder after trying to commit suicide while pregnant. Pregnant women are becoming a special class subject to "special" laws that infringe on their fundamental rights.

#3 Here the author opens her statement by claiming that women are being arrested for the heinous crime of a miscarriage. What the author fails to mention, is that the woman was a coke addict at the time of her pregnancy. Last I checked, negligence was still a crime. It would seem as though the author desires to carve out an exception in negligence laws granting women immunity. Talk about creating a special class.

There is no proof that Rennie Gibbs's drug addiction caused the death of the fetus. Many "drug babies" are born each year (I can't be bothered to find a statistic right now). Bei Bei Shuai is being tried for murder for trying to commit suicide by eating rat poison after her lover told her he was not only leaving her with his wife and kids, but moving out of state. The fetus died 8 days later, but the woman survived. Another woman, Amanda Kimbrough is serving 10 years because her baby died 19 minutes after a premature c-section. She was informed during her pregnancy the child would be born with Downs Syndrome and it was suggested she terminate pregnancy, but she doesn't believe in abortion and chose to have the child. Six months later she is arrested for "chemical endangerment" for allegedly taking drugs while pregnant, which she claims never happened.

These three cases are just a few of hundreds sweeping across the US. There are over 40 others facing the same charges as Amanda Kimbrough in Alabama alone. I personally disagree with the notion that if you attempt suicide and fail but the baby dies you should be tried for murder. She was already suicidal, save the tax payers some money and just let her kill herself. But seriously....this kind of legislation is yet another drain on our tax dollars. There is such a thing as negligence, but I think this is getting out of hand.

4. Forcing women to undergo involuntary vaginal penetration (otherwise called rape) with a condom-covered, six- to eight-inch ultrasound probe. Pennsylvania is currently considering that option along with 11 other states. Trans-vaginal ultrasounds undertaken without a woman's consent are rape according to the legal definition of the word. This violates a woman's bodily integrity and also constitutes torture when used, as states are suggesting, as a form of control and oppression. Women have the right not to be raped by the state.

#4 Involuntary my ass. They are given a choice, no one is holding a gun to their head and forcing them to have an abortion. Unless this law also applies to abortions that are medically necessary. In which case, the law is utter crap and needs to be amended. But again, I seriously doubt that.

The law not only applies to all abortions, but is also applied to miscarriages and stillborns. Any woman who wishes or needs to abort a fetus for any reason is required to have an ultrasound at least 24 hrs before the abortion. Because these determinations are done so early in a pregnancy, they use a trans-vaginal ultrasound wand-thing. Basically the 6-8 inch probe the article author mentioned shoved all the way up the vagina and pressed against the base of the uterus. Now, guys don't have to experience this, but just getting tested for cancer/disease causes a lot of pain and discomfort. I won't get into details, but it can hurt some women and even cause bleeding.

5. Disabling women or sacrificing their lives by either withholding medical treatment or forcing women to undergo involuntary medical procedures. We impose an unequal obligation on women to sacrifice their bodily integrity for another. For example, as in Tysiac v. Poland, in which a mother of two, became blind after her doctor refused to perform an abortion that she wanted that would have halted the course of a degenerative eye disease. If my newborn baby is in need of a kidney and you have a spare matching one, can I enact legislation that says the state can take yours and give it to her? No. We do not force people to donate their organs to benefit others, even those who have already been born. One of the most fundamental of all human rights is that humans be treated equally before the law. Denying a woman this right is a violation of her equal right to this protection.

#5 This one is a little different. In one hand, if it were my wife, the decision would be hers. However, the argument you gave for it can easily be flipped around. So it's a stupid point to make.

First off, the article author is using a case involving the country of Poland vs. a Polish citizen. Secondly, the court found Poland to be in the wrong for not providing her with legal access to an abortion to stop the eye disease from getting worse.

Secondly, most every abortion law I have read allows for abortion in cases which can cause physical disability or harm to the mother.

6. Giving zygotes "personhood" rights while systematically stripping women of their fundamental rights. There is too much to say about the danger of personhood ideas creeping into health policy to do it here. But, consider what happens to a woman whose womb is not considered the "best" environment for a gestating fetus in a world of personhood-for-zygote legislation: who decides the best environment -- the state, her insurance company, her employer, her rapist who decides he really, really wants to be a father? Anyone but a woman.

#6 is little more than fear mongering based on conjecture founded on theoretical technology. It also, even if indirectly, argues against the development of new, life saving technology. Again, basing the opinion on conjecture founded on theoretical technology that is still long ways off. Further, the author pits women against men. Something she's really been doing this whole time, but this instance is the most hypocritical. The author wants the right to abortion, but wants to deny the right of the father to keep the child. It would seem to me that this is a great middle ground solution. The mother no longer has to be pregnant, and the father gets to keep their child. Reproduction rights have been all about the women, and have completely ignored the fact that it takes two to reproduce. Should there not be equal rights?

I believe the concern addressed here, though I may be misinterpreting it, is that a mother will become obsolete with the introduction of artificial wombs. I see no problems with it as an alternative to abortion, but I do believe what the author is speculating is legal proceedings where a father can take a pregnant woman to court and say she, "she is not ___ enough to carry this child" and have a court ordered artificial womb to which the zygote should be transplanted. It takes away the naturalness to reproduction. A couple can chose to have twins, triplets, two completely different children at a time, whatever with some money and biological samples. In vitro fertilization is one thing, but allowing such a process to take over (which could very well happen in 100 years) is disconcerting to the author. I'd probably be more against it if I had/wanted kids. But it's a great alternative to give men kids without forcing their rights on women.

7. Inhibiting, humiliating and punishing women for their choices to have an abortion for any reason by levying taxes specifically on abortion, including abortions sought by rape victims to end their involuntary insemination, imposing restrictive requirements like 24 hour wait periods and empowering doctors to lie to female patients about their fetuses in order to avoid prosecution. In Arizona, Kansas, Texas, Virginia, Colorado, Arkansas and other states around the country bills that make women "pay" for their choices are abounding.

#7 I don't have much to say here. 24hrs wont kill you, but in the event that it could, then it obviously shouldn't be required and probably isn't.

This discusses the laws which do multiple things. 1) Stop tax breaks for organizations which provide abortions. 2) Require the mother to hear the fetal heartbeat before aborting. 3) Mandates doctors inform the women of a potential risk of breast cancer from abortion (a connection heath professionals say does not exist). 4) Protect doctors from malpractice suits for lying to a patient during pregnancy. This includes withholding birth defects, potential problems or disease, and anything that may incite the woman to want to terminate the pregnancy (which really sucks for those who want to have the baby and doesn't find out about the problems until after birth). It also allows them to do things like tell them it will cause X disease/side effect, even if it does not.

Personally, I dislike the idea of a doctor being able to lie to me about a medical condition I may have. If you can't trust your doctor to tell you the truth (you're fat, you've got a bad heart, that leg has to go, your kid may be born blind, whatever), who can you trust to give it to you straight?

8. Allowing employers to delve into women's private lives and only pay for insurance when they agree, for religious reasons, with how she choses to use birth control. In Arizona, which introduced such a bill this week, this means covering payment for birth control as a benefit only when a woman has proven that she will not use it to control her own reproduction (ie. as birth control). As much as I am worried about women and families in Arizona though, I am more worried about those in Alabama. You see, as recently revealed in a public policy poll in Alabama, conservative, evangelicals who support "personhood" related "pro-life" legislation and are fighting for their "religious liberty" -- 21 percent think interracial marriage should be illegal. So, what if they decide that an employee involved in an interracial marriage should not, by divine mandate, reproduce? Do they switch and provide birth control for this employee? Do they make contraception a necessary term of employment for people in interracial marriages? This violates a woman's right to privacy. My womb is one million times more private than your bedrooms, gentlemen.

#8 is more of an employer vs employee rights issue, not so much an abortion issue. I strongly support the 2nd amendment and constitutional carry movements, but I would say the same thing if the topic was whether or not an employer could prohibit their employees from carrying.

Actually, it's a privacy issue. An employee who must inform their employer as to why they are taking a specific medication is having their privacy violated. If I'm on anti-depressants, the pill, or any other prescription medication, it is no my employer's business, whether they help pay for my health care or not. They should also not be informed of why I was admitted to the emergency room over the weekend, or which doctor I see. These are details which are not any of their business.

The jab at evangelicals in Alabama being against interracial marriages is simply a cheap shot at Republicans and has no relation to this article aside from that.

9. Sacrificing women's overall health and the well-being of their families in order to stop them from exercising their fundamental human right to control their own bodies and reproduction. Texas just did that when it turned down $35million dollars in federal funds thereby ensuring that 300,000 low-income and uninsured Texas women will have no or greatly-reduced access to basic preventive and reproductive health care.

#9 Like #8, is not an abortion issue. It's a state vs fed issue. Texas rejects a lot of federal aid, not just health related.

True. The author is simply bitter that a side effect of rejecting that money will affect the health care of low-income and uninsured citizens. She brings up preventative health care (such as vaccines and checkups) as well as the reproductive health care she has been arguing throughout the article. Yes, the poor don't get near as much as the rich. That's the crappy thing about being poor. That we have poor, starving, homeless, unhealthy individuals who can't get what they need only proves this country is not the utopia everyone wishes to believe.

10. Depriving women of their ability to earn a living and support themselves and their families. Bills, like this one in Arizona, allow employers to fire women for using contraception. Women like these are being fired for not.

#10 see #8.

Again, I argue an employer need not know the reasons behind personal prescriptions, including birth control. The mere fact our state and federal governments would even consider passing a law which allows employers to fire employees for using prescriptions like contraception (and who knows what else) is idiotic. How is that not an invasion of privacy?

Those women who are being fired for being pregnant are simply not protected from discrimination in the workplace. They aren't disabled so the Americans with Disabilities Act does not apply. This means that pregnant women who ask for accommodations like additional bathroom breaks, a chair, or help preforming their normal duties can be fired without the employer batting an eye. There are no legal repercussions against the employer for firing a pregnant woman. I think they should be allowed to fire pregnant women, but only if the cause is due to provable poor performance that is unrelated to her pregnancy.

NOTE: As I said in IM, Jack. I never stated I supported or agreed with this article and all of its contents. I merely shared it on Facebook. Lesson learned.

PS: Given the fact that I've spent far too long on this reply. Any spelling errors or blonde moments are not my fault and should be given leniency (pretty please).

[MEZZANINE]

Frankly Im sick of the 'rights' subjects, every time I hear it seems to be giving more rights to either women or to some minority group often through what is called 'positive discrimination'. Positive discrimination has nothing to do with equal rights, it takes away rights from one group to appease another, and it always seems to be the White Male that gets screwed over.

I'm not fond of the 'rights' arguments, either. However, taking the rights away from the woman so the man can be a father is another example of taking rights away from one group to appease the another. The difference is jobs can be found elsewhere, women can't hand the zygote/embryo over and move on with their lives. There are hospital bills, prescription costs, maternity leave, the abruption of their lives, having to quite/put off school, and many other side effects that would come with forcing a woman to bear a man's child. Not to be crass, but men can just go knock up another woman if they want a kid.

Have to pick you up on this point mate

Saying NO to abortion if the child is wanted my either parent is NOT taking a right away from a woman.

Women have only been given this extra Right or Option to kill an unborn child in some countries in the last 50 years, they dont have it everywhere and havent had it throughout the rest of human history.

It was/is an insane law/right/option/choice brought in hastily during the women's rights movement without proper consideration, it just got in on the wave of sentiment with the equality movement ( most of which I agree with ), and public acceptance was brought about later through advertising as abortion is a product/service provided for money that some people saw an opportunity to sell and make money from.



There is a BIG difference between removing rights and NOT giving extra rights like the right to kill unborns.

Saying NO to abortion ( when it's not based on medical grounds ) does not take away choice, it's saying you already chose, now take responsibility for the choice you made.



On the point on contraception, you're right to a degree, contraception is not 100%, most vary in effectiveness in the high 90s very close to 100%, but timing can make it 100%, women dont have to have sex in every part of their cycle, and can experience pleasure without having one blown up them. The option of abortion is NOT necessary, it just makes life easier and more convenient to kill what you dont want instead of thinking about the consequences and taking precautions before hand.

[[KMA]Avenger]

There is another aspect to this, if abortion was to be outlawed and HEAVY sentences imposed on back street abortionists (no amount of punishment would completely eradicate it if abortion was made illegal. i accept this point), and women forced to carry to term a baby, then it forces people to become more responsible. abortion just makes it to easy for people to be irresponsible from the outset.

[deni]

Women have only been given this extra Right or Option to kill an unborn child in some countries in the last 50 years, they dont have it everywhere and havent had it throughout the rest of human history.

If you define abortion by extracting the embryo from the womb through surgery, then you are right. It has been a practice only in the last 100 or so years.

Yet, if a woman did not want to carry a child to term, there are numerous ways how to trigger a miscarriage - be it through herbs or the like. Women have done that all through human history and will continue to do so, if their right to abortion is denied, no matter the health risk involved in that. The notion, that no abortions take place (as in willingly triggered misscarriages) if abortions are illegal, is ludicrous.

On the point on contraception, you're right to a degree, contraception is not 100%, most vary in effectiveness in the high 90s very close to 100%, but timing can make it 100%, women dont have to have sex in every part of their cycle, and can experience pleasure without having one blown up them. The option of abortion is NOT necessary, it just makes life easier and more convenient to kill what you dont want instead of thinking about the consequences and taking precautions before hand.

I find it always amusing, how people (mostly men) think of an abortion in the same terms as going to the dentist. You get in, get it done, go out and do not shed a thought about it. This is not the case - deciding in favour of an abortion is a very though decision and has emotional/psycological consequences that are severe. It is nothing done lightly, nor is it an alternative to using contraception as implied by the pro-life fraction - " I forgot to take the pill, oh well, if I the **Filtered** hits the fan I will just have an abortion" is definitely not what happens.


Further, suggesting that women should only have sexual intercourse in the parts of their cycle in which they are not fertile, only shows a bit of ignorance about human physiology. Human females, unlike other mammals, show no outward signs when they are fertile. The only way to determine 100% if a woman is fertile at a given point in time, is to have an ultrasound made on her ovaries in order to check if a follicle has built up enough.


Hardly a practice suitable to decide whether to have sex or not, isn't it?

[MEZZANINE]

Women have only been given this extra Right or Option to kill an unborn child in some countries in the last 50 years, they dont have it everywhere and havent had it throughout the rest of human history.

If you define abortion by extracting the embryo from the womb through surgery, then you are right. It has been a practice only in the last 100 or so years.

Yet, if a woman did not want to carry a child to term, there are numerous ways how to trigger a miscarriage - be it through herbs or the like. Women have done that all through human history and will continue to do so, if their right to abortion is denied, no matter the health risk involved in that. The notion, that no abortions take place (as in willingly triggered misscarriages) if abortions are illegal, is ludicrous.

On the point on contraception, you're right to a degree, contraception is not 100%, most vary in effectiveness in the high 90s very close to 100%, but timing can make it 100%, women dont have to have sex in every part of their cycle, and can experience pleasure without having one blown up them. The option of abortion is NOT necessary, it just makes life easier and more convenient to kill what you dont want instead of thinking about the consequences and taking precautions before hand.

I find it always amusing, how people (mostly men) think of an abortion in the same terms as going to the dentist. You get in, get it done, go out and do not shed a thought about it. This is not the case - deciding in favour of an abortion is a very though decision and has emotional/psycological consequences that are severe. It is nothing done lightly, nor is it an alternative to using contraception as implied by the pro-life fraction - " I forgot to take the pill, oh well, if I the **Filtered** hits the fan I will just have an abortion" is definitely not what happens.


Further, suggesting that women should only have sexual intercourse in the parts of their cycle in which they are not fertile, only shows a bit of ignorance about human physiology. Human females, unlike other mammals, show no outward signs when they are fertile. The only way to determine 100% if a woman is fertile at a given point in time, is to have an ultrasound made on her ovaries in order to check if a follicle has built up enough.


Hardly a practice suitable to decide whether to have sex or not, isn't it?

Maybe is varies more than I thought from woman to woman, but I have known women who dont take the contraceptive pills because of side effects it had on them, and one in particular who knew exactly when her 'safe times' were and would only have penetrative sex during dates in her cycle when she was certain she could not conceive, and her system worked ( though it was frustrating lol ).


On the deliberately causing miscarriage, yes there are ways but they carry risks that most would not take. I referred to 'non-medical' terminations and I accept that not all medical conditions are physical, if a woman is in the mental state where she would risk harming herself to abort the result of a psychiatric evaluation could be a reason to abort just as the result of a medical examination could be.

All generalisations have exceptions.

[Psyko]

Women have only been given this extra Right or Option to kill an unborn child in some countries in the last 50 years, they dont have it everywhere and havent had it throughout the rest of human history.

If you define abortion by extracting the embryo from the womb through surgery, then you are right. It has been a practice only in the last 100 or so years.

Yet, if a woman did not want to carry a child to term, there are numerous ways how to trigger a miscarriage - be it through herbs or the like. Women have done that all through human history and will continue to do so, if their right to abortion is denied, no matter the health risk involved in that. The notion, that no abortions take place (as in willingly triggered misscarriages) if abortions are illegal, is ludicrous.

On the point on contraception, you're right to a degree, contraception is not 100%, most vary in effectiveness in the high 90s very close to 100%, but timing can make it 100%, women dont have to have sex in every part of their cycle, and can experience pleasure without having one blown up them. The option of abortion is NOT necessary, it just makes life easier and more convenient to kill what you dont want instead of thinking about the consequences and taking precautions before hand.

I find it always amusing, how people (mostly men) think of an abortion in the same terms as going to the dentist. You get in, get it done, go out and do not shed a thought about it. This is not the case - deciding in favour of an abortion is a very though decision and has emotional/psycological consequences that are severe. It is nothing done lightly, nor is it an alternative to using contraception as implied by the pro-life fraction - " I forgot to take the pill, oh well, if I the **Filtered** hits the fan I will just have an abortion" is definitely not what happens.


Further, suggesting that women should only have sexual intercourse in the parts of their cycle in which they are not fertile, only shows a bit of ignorance about human physiology. Human females, unlike other mammals, show no outward signs when they are fertile. The only way to determine 100% if a woman is fertile at a given point in time, is to have an ultrasound made on her ovaries in order to check if a follicle has built up enough.


Hardly a practice suitable to decide whether to have sex or not, isn't it?

Maybe is varies more than I thought from woman to woman, but I have known women who dont take the contraceptive pills because of side effects it had on them, and one in particular who knew exactly when her 'safe times' were and would only have penetrative sex during dates in her cycle when she was certain she could not conceive, and her system worked ( though it was frustrating lol ).


On the deliberately causing miscarriage, yes there are ways but they carry risks that most would not take. I referred to 'non-medical' terminations and I accept that not all medical conditions are physical, if a woman is in the mental state where she would risk harming herself to abort the result of a psychiatric evaluation could be a reason to abort just as the result of a medical examination could be.

All generalisations have exceptions.

All generalizations do have exceptions and that woman you knew who had "safe times" is one of them. There is no such thing as a period of time in a given month where a woman is 100% safe from becoming pregnant! This is a myth. Peak ovulation happens 14 days after a woman starts her period. Most women think they are "safe" the week following their period, which is most definitely not the case. Sperm can stay in a woman's body for up to a week and cause pregnancy (it takes the slow swimmers a few days to reach the fallopian tubes), but that also depends on where the woman's ovum is at the time of sex.

Which means if I woman has a 7 day period (yes guys, it really can last 7-8 days) and has sex the moment it ends, the sperm can still be viable 7 days later when ovulation begins. The same can be said with having sex the week before a period. And the two weeks prior to that are the peak times to become pregnant. Mostly it depends on the anatomy of the specific man and woman. She may not be regular and he may have strong/weak sperm. Also, pregnancy only matters if the sperm gets past the cervix. But hey, most people don't take anatomy or educate themselves on this crap.

Point is, there is no safe period. Those who think there is remind me of my cousin who thought condoms prevented all diseases. Sex education is necessary people! I wish the Abstinence Police would shut up and let people have some intelligence when it comes to their sex lives. Teaching abstinence does nothing but limit teens and young adults' ability to stay safe and healthy. Only the people willing to educate themselves (and I'm sure that is a small percentage) will know how to have safe sex lives.

/rant

There are only two 100% way to avoid pregnancy. 1) Don't have sex. 2) Remove the ovaries.

Deni is correct in that abortion has a major effect on the women who go through it. I have an aunt who is nearly 60 who is still haunted by it to this day. Do not think women run in and get an abortion like it's a dental cleaning. It's a terrible experience.

[MEZZANINE]

If thats true Im both shocked that I was lied to, and happy I got so lucky ( in both senses as she was hot but I never wanted kids with her lol ). BUT I know I wasnt the only man she used that method with, there were others before me and I have no doubt more after me, cant say how effective it was after I lost contact but her, but it certainly worked for her for a few years with a number of partners I wouldnt like to guess at.

[[KMA]Avenger]

All generalizations do have exceptions and that woman you knew who had "safe times" is one of them. There is no such thing as a period of time in a given month where a woman is 100% safe from becoming pregnant! This is a myth. Peak ovulation happens 14 days after a woman starts her period. Most women think they are "safe" the week following their period, which is most definitely not the case. Sperm can stay in a woman's body for up to a week and cause pregnancy (it takes the slow swimmers a few days to reach the fallopian tubes), but that also depends on where the woman's ovum is at the time of sex.

Which means if I woman has a 7 day period (yes guys, it really can last 7-8 days) and has sex the moment it ends, the sperm can still be viable 7 days later when ovulation begins. The same can be said with having sex the week before a period. And the two weeks prior to that are the peak times to become pregnant. Mostly it depends on the anatomy of the specific man and woman. She may not be regular and he may have strong/weak sperm. Also, pregnancy only matters if the sperm gets past the cervix. But hey, most people don't take anatomy or educate themselves on this crap.

Point is, there is no safe period. Those who think there is remind me of my cousin who thought condoms prevented all diseases. Sex education is necessary people! I wish the Abstinence Police would shut up and let people have some intelligence when it comes to their sex lives. Teaching abstinence does nothing but limit teens and young adults' ability to stay safe and healthy. Only the people willing to educate themselves (and I'm sure that is a small percentage) will know how to have safe sex lives.

/rant

There are only two 100% way to avoid pregnancy. 1) Don't have sex. 2) Remove the ovaries.

Deni is correct in that abortion has a major effect on the women who go through it. I have an aunt who is nearly 60 who is still haunted by it to this day. Do not think women run in and get an abortion like it's a dental cleaning. It's a terrible experience.

That's a great post!







Another aspect of abortion is the harm it does to a woman's body on nearly every level. when a woman becomes pregnant her body prepares itself to carry the baby full term (barring miscarriages, both natural and accidental) and then once the baby is delivered to feed the baby. when a foetus is aborted this plays havoc with the woman's body and can result in a greater chance of getting cancer due to the cells literally going haywire because of the unnatural way in which the pregnancy is terminated. sorry if i am not being clear, i heard it from a doctor who was pro abortion and due to research changed their opinion. it was a while ago and i can't remember the doctors name.


Here's a link with some info: http://www.abortionfacts.com/online_boo ... oth_23.asp

I simply ran a VERY quick search of the term "abortion increases chances of cancer", and found some info, but this is not an area i am well researched in. i simply recall an interview with said doctor who stated there was a link between abortion and elevated chances of cancer.