i know one that is 100% effective, and it's also freeQuote:
Also keep in mind though that the most effective forms of birth control are expensive
Printable View
i know one that is 100% effective, and it's also freeQuote:
Also keep in mind though that the most effective forms of birth control are expensive
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?Quote:
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.
It's a woman's body, it should be her choice whether or not to get an abortion.
If a fetus is a life, then so is an egg and a sperm. As far as I know, I can't be convicted of murder every time I have a period, therefore I don't think of abortion as murder, either.
Furthermore, a fetus has no consciousness. It is simply the beginnings of a being, not an actual being.
I think it is possible that having an unwanted child could be far crueler than aborting one, as well.
It does in the third trimeser, but it does not for the first trimester or the vast majority of the second. I think that's the bottom line. If killing a first trimester fetus is murder, then killing a mosquito is really horrendous.Quote:
Originally Posted by Savy
I agree with everything you just wrote.
Thanks.
As a fetus I would rather die without truly living than to be brought into the world and raised by parents that simply cannot care for me. Would you rather have your child never see the light of day, never experience consciousness, or would you rather have it suffer from emotional and/or, potentially, physical trauma associated with unknowledgeable, incapable, and maybe even unwilling parents for the entirety of their life?
I have killed many mosquitoes in the past week or so; looks like I'm a serial killer now.Quote:
Originally Posted by Universal Mind
I'm a fetus and I approve of this message :thumbup:Quote:
Originally Posted by Snowboy
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 CareQuote:
Originally Posted by Caenis
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.
You're right, condoms are relatively cheap in the short term, particularly when purchased in bulk. However, I would not recommend anyone rely only on condoms to prevent pregnancy. Each year, between 2 and 18% of couples who rely only on condoms will become pregnant. Personally, I am not comfortable with these numbers. I would never only use a piece of latex, my fiancee and I cannot take that chance. All other more effective forms of birth control are of course going to be more expensive, especially if you have to make an initial payment of hundreds of dollars.Quote:
Originally Posted by StonedApe
There are much more reliable methods that could be cheaper in the long-run (vasectomies/IUDs are a few hundred dollars, but are likely to last forever/one decade). I would rather that couples have access to very effective, long-term birth control. Condoms are not as effective as everyone thinks.
Yes, the US government is in debt. I never stated that the government "could buy birth control for all." That is why I believe shifting most of the burden to business is acceptable. When an individual receives health insurance from a company, the company allows the employee to put one's family on the insurance plan as well. Most people would be covered this way. And as I wrote, people would need to apply into something like Medicare/Medicaid if they could not access a company's insurance plan. Those who could afford to pay for their own obviously would not be accepted into Medicare/Medicaid.
As for your statement, "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?" Regulations are created for a reason. There are many regulations that force businesses to invest in the safety and health of their employees. It would be for the best if everyone had access to healthcare. Should businesses not be under obligation to do what is best for their employees and community? Granted, I understand that very few people would share my opinion on how healthcare should be covered, but I believe that having businesses cover most people would be most efficient. It's certainly a better option than having the government in charge of healthcare.
My friend has an IUD. She's had 3 abortions now I think in a period of 4-5 years(plus is now pregnant, but going to have the child). They aren't as effective as advertised.
As for healthcare, of course it would be best if everyone had it, but it would also be best if everyone had a job they liked, and everyone could go on vacation whenever they wanted. That doesn't make it practical or ethical. In my opinion the government should take measures to encourage businesses to provide insurance but they have no right to make mandates that anyone(including) business buy certain services.\
I support having systems in place to take care of the poor, but they shouldn't be compulsory systems. And if they are going to be they should at least not result in violence when a person chooses not to participate.
Huh. Well, it is recommended that couples use two forms of birth control. Unfortunate for your friend though. =/ She got the short end of the stick.Quote:
Originally Posted by StonedApe
So how do you feel about businesses and employees paying for Social Security or worker's compensation? I understand the point you're making, and to a certain extent I agree with it. But I think universal healthcare is ethically good for a nation or community because it helps to ensure a decent quality of life. And financially, it's cheaper to dole out preventative healthcare than to fix major problems after they've occurred.
I'm against all forms of taxes. Taxes are a violent method of solving non-violent problems.
I support safety nets as long as you don't use violence to create them.
I have no problem with early/early-mid term abortions.
I think i should be one (abortion).
Morally against abortion. However, the right for women to choose in certain cases: rape and incest (primary) should be an option on the table for those who are victims of such treachery.
Why? To be honest, I don't really count a fetus as a person. It's not fully developed and has no idea what's going on. If things had gone as planned, that egg would have been disposed of anyway, just like all the others. People have accidents, not all contraception is 100% effective.Quote:
Originally Posted by Warheit
Also, we're trying to keep population down. A way of doing that is lowering the number of unwanted kids. Obviously it would be better if that's done with contraception, but I really don't think abortions are a big deal unless someone's having them all the time cause they can't be bothered going out to buy a packet of condoms.
I don't think people should have children unless they have the money for them and are in the right mindset to raise a kid - as in they really want one and will bring it up in a good way. Mind you, I know a couple of people my age whose parents had them at like 16 and they're really hard working and respectable, but of course it depends on the parent in the first place, environment they grew up in, etc... various factors.
God, that's like me having a kid :shock:
Apologies in advance for anything that doesn't make sense, typos etc. It's 2:11 and I'm knackered :sleepmeditate2:
Obviously not getting accidentally impregnated if you're carrying on here. Condolences.Quote:
Originally Posted by Raspberry
Oh how I love a good abortion thread! One pops up in ED every say.. 2 months? Here are my thoughts on the matter.
A baby will change your life. Trust me. Therefore I'm pro
Pro abortion?Quote:
Originally Posted by Jeff777
People who have accidents need to cowboy up and have the kid. And why am I morally against it? Because I believe it is taking away the potential of life.Quote:
Originally Posted by Raspberry
Abortion and population control are two issues that should never be brought up in the same breath. Anyone who would use abortions as birth control need to GTFO. If you make a "mistake" own up to it. Don't want the kid? Plenty of people who are adopting who would.Quote:
Also, we're trying to keep population down. A way of doing that is lowering the number of unwanted kids. Obviously it would be better if that's done with contraception, but I really don't think abortions are a big deal unless someone's having them all the time cause they can't be bothered going out to buy a packet of condoms.
Agreed. Raising a child is no easy task. I am 25 years old and even with a good job, stability and all that jazz, I am not ready for one. I'm thinking ~ 30 or so would be the right age. Plus, there is a lot of life I want to live without having to worry about having to care for someone else.Quote:
I don't think people should have children unless they have the money for them and are in the right mindset to raise a kid - as in they really want one and will bring it up in a good way. Mind you, I know a couple of people my age whose parents had them at like 16 and they're really hard working and respectable, but of course it depends on the parent in the first place, environment they grew up in, etc... various factors.
All and all, ending life (whether it be death penalty or abortion) are against my moral standards. I am non-violent. I don't believe in that sort of thing. I just try to keep my stances consistent.
I think abortion's not a very clear-cut singular issue. It raises a network of interesting questions on its own.. I've been thinking about them, and haven't made up my mind just yet myself.. But I do think that if any ethical statements should be made about abortion, these questions should in the very least be answered. Don't know how productive it'd be to post these here, but I'll just plunk them here if anyone's interested ;p
Questions you might wish to ask yourself:
What makes a human, human?
At what point in its development does the embryo become 'fully human'?
At what point in its development does the embryo become conscious or capable of suffering?
Is the embryo 'potentially human' from the very beginning and if so, does that mean anything concrete? What is 'potentially human'? Are there exceptions?
If so, how should we treat potential-humans vs full-humans?
Also, if so, what about the issue that the only potential difference between potential-humans and full-human is the time we wait?
The ending a life issue:
What does it mean to 'end a life'
What about 'ending a potential life'
Is it always unjustified or are there exceptions?
What if we remove the 'human-bias' from the question, so to say..
What if we were to create a machine that's fully functional and conscious to the degree that humans are, that we can turn on or leave de-activated, would we have the moral obligation to turn it on?
What if there was a timer on that same machine that would 'wake it up' after a couple of weeks? Would we be justified in de-activating it for good instead of letting the timer run out?
What if it had a gradual activation of 'mind-functions'?
If the answers to the above is 'no', then what's the essential difference with humans? And what's the practical difference?
Then there's the question of identity and 'ownership', so to say.
Does the mother/father 'own' the human/potential-human/machine-with-timer/whatever?
Or, in less black-and-white terms of 'owning': to what degree can we decide others' fates in the above cases of human/potential-human/machine-with-timer/whatever?
Health and safety questions should be considered as well:
What if there's a large risk to the mother?
What risk is 'large enough'?
What's the weight of the unborn's life vs the mother's life? (again, we go back to the potential vs fully formed human issue)
Then the future-viability:
What if there's no good foreseeable future for the child? Are there exceptions? And what make these exceptions important?
What if the child makes it such that the parent has no good foreseeable future anymore?
What about various degrees of no-good-foreseeable-future-ness?
And then, of course, there's the question of how do these questions relate to the bigger issue? How much weight does each one have in contributing to the issue of abortion at large?
Aaand yup.. That's it for now ;p
g'day :)
Tim
Well I think life is a terrific thing. A blessing, if you will. However, pregnancies can cause quite a disturbance in ones life. But through it all, the people may deem it worth it. Depends on the person really. So I remain pro.Quote:
Originally Posted by khh
The whole idea behind "life" is screwed up. Currently the definition behind life actually means nothing. Bacteria are considered alive but a virus is not?? They say this because a virus is not as complex but surely this is not a good reason?? Therefore I believe the real definition which can be used practically is that something is alive when it is capable of simple thought, say 300+ neurons in its brain. Anything under this basically is the same as a biological machine becuase it cannot make decisions.
As a baby does not gain consciousness and awareness until it truly leaves the womb I guess that abortion should be acceptable up to three months after fertilization of the egg.