Thread: What do you think about abortion?

Originally Posted by juroara

Most men I meet just say its the "womens choice" so its enlightening to see guys who are upset that they're powerless to have any say over their childs fate.

This entire issue, pro-choice, pro-life, whatever makes me sad. All arguments focusing on the abortion and fetus become circular arguments, society as a whole can't decide when the fetus is a human person. And it doesnt help that feminism tried so hard to fight for equal rights while completely ignoring that men and women are fundamentally biologically different. "Bad" feminism made women want to be biologically just like men, free from the burden of pregnancy and free to have sex as they please without a care. But that's just never true.

Women who believe this lie about their own bodies just end up having unwanted pregnancy after unwanted pregnancy. (duh)

We need to nullify the need for abortion by starting at the fundamentals of the problem......Women...are not......men.

Women get pregnant, not men. Pregnancy is natural and necessary for the continuation of life. Pregnancy is not a parasitic disease, nor is birthing a new human being anything to be taken so lightly. All women should understand their own bodies and what it means to carry and bring new life into this world before they even start their first menstruation cycle. And its because women especially are the ones who get pregnant, they need proper sex education starting at a young age.

Teenagers need more than just sex education - they probably need relationship education too. Why are teenagers having sex with someone they don't even love? Its stupid especially for a teenager. Why are they literally committing suicide because they were dumped? Its a tragedy, teenagers need a lot of relationship help.

Sex education needs to teach why adults frown on teenagers having sex. Its called maturity.

If you're 30 years old and in a loving committed relationship and an unwanted pregnancy happens, there's no getting around it - especially if its your first pregnancy and you're healthy, society would consider it immature and childish for you to get an abortion. At some point, you're expected to take responsibility for your actions and accept parenthood -----its what grown ups do.

If teenagers are too immature to act like adults, then they shouldn't be having sex - period.

Now I'm not saying that its morally wrong for teenagers to have sex. But I will say our culture completely lacks a rite of passage into adulthood and even adults graduating from college still question if theyre still kids. The quincenera originally was when a 15 year old GIRL becomes a 15 year old WOMAN. It meant she had the right to marry, to have sex, and become a mother - at the age of 15!! And by taking part in the quincenera, this 15 year old was herself acknowledging that she was ready to be mature.

We completely lack any of this in our culture. Lets figure that out.

15 is a ripe child bearing age. We get hung up on this 18 year rule like everything under that age is offensive. Truthfully, as a society gets more educated, the age where women start bearing children raises, which is a good thing in my opinion. We're getting past the age when we had to breed so much that once a girl hit puberty it was time to take advantage of her baby factories and make more little parasites. But it's important to remember where we came from if we want to address our problems now. It's important to remember why teenagers have such strong urges to fuck each other's brains out.

Honestly there are a ton of lessons missing from school. Not just on relationships but general life experience that prepares people to live in the real world. But again, it goes back to where we came from. Not too long ago the way to prepare kids for the real world was to get them married, get the man in a good job and the woman pregnant and competent at house keeping. Church would teach the moral side of things and school will get them ready for academic pursuits. Society changed faster than our education system could keep up and it needs direction to understand how it needs to adapt.

Over half of people who get abortions have one or more child already. So the choice often isn't between parenthood or not parenthood but whether or not you have one additional child to raise. Usually the reasons for abortions are based in logical reasons such as you can afford the child, or an additional child will cause to much stress on you or your family.

So most people having abortions are mature adults. They just don't think babies are alive, and so use what might seem like cold logic, that if you don't have money, or your family will not approve, you abort it.

If you ask yourself how can people think like that, then you need to look at it from a historical perspective. Historically people have used abortions for thousands of years and during that time no one ever considered babies to be alive. It is only a recent idea in the last 50 years or so that people have came up with this idea of pro life.

Originally Posted by Alric

Historically people have used abortions for thousands of years and during that time no one ever considered babies to be alive.

I think most people have always considered babies to be alive. It's more an issue of not considering embryos or fetuses babies.

Yea that is what I meant, if it was still in the mother it wasn't alive, or didn't have a soul. There was always some debate but the main reason people used to be against abortion wasn't due to the rights of the child, but because the church hated the idea of woman having sex for fun and wanted it only for having children.

I in no way want to demean anyone or anything, but I've been thinking and observing even some real life abortion debates, and in general, I think - pro-lifers tend to want to go with roots arguments voluntarily, ex. a fetus is human and thus has rights etc., while those who are pro-choice tend to go with more complex/what-if situational arguments ex. what about in a case of rape etc.
It's not always like this obviously, but I've observed it many times

Nah they're both totally absolutist, the pro-choicers just have more "greater-good" arguments at their disposal. But at the heart of each side is a basic principle about life and rights.

I prefer avoiding those and sticking with the greater good though, and my opinion is prohibiting something has never stopped it before. In fact before Roe vs Wade more young girls died as a result of back alley abortions. Until we can remove the motivation to get an abortion, we're putting lives in jeopardy by prohibiting them. Whether or not we can figure out where life begins, it's safe to say a teenage girl is alive and we should reduce their chance of dying.

That is a good point Omnis and it always bugged me when people are pro life and anti contraceptives. Since they want to remove abortions but then decrease the means of reducing them. Which is just silly in my opinion.

If you want to reduce the number of abortions, which is the goal of both sides because even pro abortion people would rather have the number reduced, then you want easy access to birth control, and education on preventing pregnancy.

So really, regardless of what side you are on, we should really focus on reducing the need for abortion, and then it will not happen any more.

Originally Posted by Alric

because even pro abortion people would rather have the number reduced

Some, not all. Some people have no negative feelings about abortions and don't care how many there are, though they probably wouldn't object to fewer unwanted pregnancies (through better contraception and education). Pensive Patrick was advocating earlier for mandatory abortions based on socio-economics, which would certainly mean more abortions.

Didn't all of the Republican frontrunners start playing a game of oneupmanship at one point about how much they hated birth control pills?

I don't think Mitt Romney dislikes birth control. He just doesn't want to pay for it. As far as I'm aware, birth control is not immoral to him, just an expense.

Originally Posted by Caenis

I don't think Mitt Romney dislikes birth control. He just doesn't want to pay for it. As far as I'm aware, birth control is not immoral to him, just an expense.

Didn't one of those bastards say something like 'I'm not paying for that slut to have as much sex as she wants' when talking about a pro-contraception woman?

Originally Posted by Pensive Patrick

Didn't one of those bastards say something like 'I'm not paying for that slut to have as much sex as she wants' when talking about a pro-contraception woman?

Originally Posted by IndieAnthias

that was Rush Limbaugh.

All of the Republican candidates tried to separate themselves from Limbaugh after his comment because everyone was so outraged by it.

When someone asked Romney about free birth control, he responded with "You know, let me tell you, no no, look, look let me tell you something. If you’re looking for free stuff you don’t have to pay for? Vote for the other guy, that’s what he’s all about, okay? That’s not, that’s not what I’m about."
It's clear that Romney doesn't place great value in contraceptives, but I have yet to hear him state whether he likes them or not.

Originally Posted by Caenis

All of the Republican candidates tried to separate themselves from Limbaugh after his comment because everyone was so outraged by it.

When someone asked Romney about free birth control, he responded with "You know, let me tell you, no no, look, look let me tell you something. If you’re looking for free stuff you don’t have to pay for? Vote for the other guy, that’s what he’s all about, okay? That’s not, that’s not what I’m about."
It's clear that Romney doesn't place great value in contraceptives, but I have yet to hear him state whether he likes them or not.

Those comments are not about liking or not liking contraception. They're about whether the government should pay for it. I'm a huge fan of contraception, but I don't think the government should use tax money to pay for it. It's a personal responsibility.

that was Rush Limbaugh.

Once you throw politics into it, it's no longer about figuring out a method to achieve the greatest good. It becomes a moronic parade of emotional appeal and glib logic.

Originally Posted by Xei

That wasn't what I was driving at. I'm not considering morals just now; it's just that, according to the line of reasoning that you initially employed, both lives are the original life. That seems rather contradictory?

Sorry for the late response. But I'd say that the two having the same past, the same genetic make-up and activation and just being exactly the same would mean they're the same life at the point of creation. After that, when differences inevitably follow (different environment, different choices, different random happenings, different reactions from other people) they split into two separate entities.

Originally Posted by Alric

If you want to reduce the number of abortions, which is the goal of both sides because even pro abortion people would rather have the number reduced, then you want easy access to birth control, and education on preventing pregnancy.

So really, regardless of what side you are on, we should really focus on reducing the need for abortion, and then it will not happen any more.

And there's proven to be two effective ways of dealing with teenage abortions: available contraceptives and the knowledge to use them. For let's face it, teenagers will have sex, and people can't even agree on weather to discourage them. I also think adult abortions might be lowered the same way.

Decreasing population should be a priority for the world don't you think? Why shouldn't the government recognize that?

Originally Posted by Wayfaerer

Decreasing population should be a priority for the world don't you think? Why shouldn't the government recognize that?

I didn't say the government shouldn't recognize that. They can recognize it all day and all night if they want to. I said the government shouldn't pay for contraception. People who don't need to be reproducing need education, not free birth control. People can buy condoms and so forth. The obstacle is getting many of them to understand that they need them.

Originally Posted by Universal Mind

I didn't say the government shouldn't recognize that. They can recognize it all day and all night if they want to. I said the government shouldn't pay for contraception. People who don't need to be reproducing need education, not free birth control. People can buy condoms and so forth. The obstacle is getting many of them to understand that they need them.

I agree, more education is needed to teach people how to effectively use birth control. The government should pay for that education. It would also help if sex wasn't viewed as dirty, shameful, or inappropriate. That's what makes it difficult to talk about and obtain. The US has a higher unintended pregnancy rate than other developed nations. Maybe that's because of the way sex is viewed in the US. Or it could be because some of the other developed nations cover birth control. After all, it's younger people and lower-income people who have the higher percentage of unwanted pregnancies.

Also keep in mind though that the most effective forms of birth control are expensive (IUD) or permanent (vasectomy/sterilization). The other contraceptives either tamper with hormones (pill, patch, ring, shot, IUD), or are invasive, uncomfortable, and generally have higher pregnancy rates (condoms, cervical caps, diaphrams, IUDs, sponges, spermicide).

I think more convenient and cheaper methods of birth control would be most helpful, at least until people's values changed and they become properly educated about contraceptives. I'm really curious to see the results for those Vasalgel tests in India/the US.

Also keep in mind though that the most effective forms of birth control are expensive

i know one that is 100% effective, and it's also free

Ok, that makes sense and made me lol. well done.

Abstinence/Outercourse is a behavior or practice, not a product or service supplied by the healthcare industry/companies. Notice how I didn't include breastfeeding, the withdrawal method, or fertility awareness-based methods in my previous post.

People have the choice of practicing abstinence/outercourse, and if people choose to do it, great. Of course their chances of becoming pregnant would be 0% or almost zero, but abstinence can also be considered an inconvenience. The reality is that many people choose to have sex at a time that they don't want children. Other effective contraceptives should be available for when that happens.

Originally Posted by Caenis

Abstinence/Outercourse is a behavior or practice, not a product or service supplied by the healthcare industry/companies. Notice how I didn't include breastfeeding, the withdrawal method, or fertility awareness-based methods in my previous post.

People have the choice of practicing abstinence/outercourse, and if people choose to do it, great. Of course their chances of becoming pregnant would be 0% or almost zero, but abstinence can also be considered an inconvenience. The reality is that many people choose to have sex at a time that they don't want children. Other effective contraceptives should be available for when that happens.

Who's dime?

Primarily businesses, and for whoever is not covered by companies, the government. I'm a fan of universal healthcare, but I think businesses should be required to supply all their employees with healthcare benefits, not the government. That way, a lot more people are insured without the government stepping in and creating inefficiencies. Then whoever is still lacking healthcare can apply to Medicare/Medicaid.

I believe birth control should be covered by all/most insurance companies, particularly the contraceptives that are cheaper and more effective in the long-run, such as IUDs and vasectomies.

Originally Posted by Caenis

Primarily businesses, and for whoever is not covered by companies, the government. I'm a fan of universal healthcare, but I think businesses should be required to supply all their employees with healthcare benefits, not the government. That way, a lot more people are insured without the government stepping in and creating inefficiencies. Then whoever is still lacking healthcare can apply to Medicare/Medicaid.

I believe birth control should be covered by all/most insurance companies, particularly the contraceptives that are cheaper and more effective in the long-run, such as IUDs and vasectomies.

I really don't get this argument. There are women out there who need birth control pills for medical reasons. But that's a medical condition. Seriously folks, condoms are not that expensive. I haven't had a job in 2 years and I can afford them. Amazon.com: ON SALE! 100 Condoms Variety Pack : CondomMan's Collection of the World's Best Condoms: Health & Personal Care

I like it when insurance companies cover health care too, but that doesn't justify forcing them to do that. Why do you or anyone else have the right to force them to run their business that way?

Would it be nice if the government had some extra cash and could buy birth control for all? Hell yeah it would, but at the moment they are 15 trillion in debt. If they can find a voluntary means of providing birth control then that would be awesome. But that would require a complete transformation of government.