Abortion.

[inked]

brownjenkins,
I think such a vaccination would be an excellent means of contraception, but so is abstinence.

The morning after pill has been available for all of my practice lifetime but only recently is marketed as such. It is a good option for some. But the real problem is getting people to utilize contraception anticipatorily.

All techniques of contraception have failure rates! Even virginity in one NOTABLE case (and yes I am aware of the 12 claims to such in world history/religions).

The laws in the states in which I have practiced have held that a minor presenting for STDs and contraception are able to obtain treatment. I would have no difficulty with complying with making the speculative vaccine available.

I really must disagree that a significant number of people cannot obtain birth control in the USA. They usually just don't trouble with it. And on the grounds in my previous post, my experience is that the vast majority of abortions seekers had the advantages but did not utilize them. Laziness is a poor excuse for taking what I regard as an innocent life.

[Rían]

Inked - I'm glad you are able to share your first-hand experience here! That's really valuable.

On the side-effects/risks of abortion - what do you know about the "one pregnancy, one abortion, now infertile" side-effect? And what numbers have you heard about the link between breast cancer and abortions?

*fumes about the use of the word "choice" again*
What, do people who think abortion is wrong say that no one should choose anything?!?! What a silly expression! Let's be accurate here, folks - you're either pro-abortion or anti-abortion, IMO. Or at the very least, "a women's right to choose to abort or not abort". This "a woman's right to choose" is silly at best, deceptive at worst, IMO.

I've read a bit about pregnancies caused by rape and women who chose to NOT abort and to either keep the baby or put it up for adoption. To them, it was an empowering choice - they chose to make good out of evil. Now THAT'S the kind of choice that I think is the right one! Not that it's easy - but life isn't guaranteed to be easy, and I think making a good thing out of an evil one is a VERY strong thing to do. One down side I heard was that one of the women decided to keep the baby, and unfortunately it had an uncanny resemblance to the father, which was hard to deal with. I think that adoption is probably the best bet here, and there are SO many couples that want to adopt!

[Nurvingiel]

Laziness is a poor excuse for having a serious medical procedure like an abortion, regardless of what you feel about abortion itself.

[Telcontar_Dunedain]

Yeah. If you are to lazy to look after the child then why not put it up for adoption? Like Rian said, theere are alot of couples that would want to adopt.

[brownjenkins]

Originally Posted by inked

All techniques of contraception have failure rates!

very true... and then there is the improper use of a contraceptives... without going into details some methods are more complicated than they might seem, and if not done correctly can be 50/50 at best

but i am glad that you agree that contraception is important... there are many religions that view any kind of contraception as wrong (as a decendent of irish catholics i have first-hand experience )

I really must disagree that a significant number of people cannot obtain birth control in the USA. They usually just don't trouble with it. And on the grounds in my previous post, my experience is that the vast majority of abortions seekers had the advantages but did not utilize them. Laziness is a poor excuse for taking what I regard as an innocent life.

it is difficult for a minor, especially one under the age of sixteen, to obtain birth control... and some of the more effective long-term methods, like depo, are quite expensive (effective because they do not depend so much on the ever-fallable human memory)

sure, abstinance is better, but the fact is, not everyone will be

in my mind, if even one person has difficulty obtaining contraception, something should be done about it

[Insidious Rex]

Originally Posted by Lief Erikson

Totally different issues. 100% different issues. Capital punishment is for criminals that have done major offenses against society. There is guilt and justice involved. An extremely young child is not guilty, and justice should be involved, only it isn't. People kill the child despite the fact that they're not guilty, because they're an inconvenience. A severe inconvenience in the scenario Starr Polish brought up, but we're still leaping from killing only because of justice to killing because of convenience. That's a huge, and in my opinion, reprehensible leap. The only way that it can be justified is by dehumanizing the fetus. If you believe scientific research that shows that the fetus is clearly not yet the equivalent of human life, then I respect your stance on abortion. Yet if you think that convenience is a good enough reason for destroying human life . . . I just have absolutely 0 respect for that view. It seems to qualify as a criminal stance to a very high degree.

Politics also you bring up. Wars vary from one to another. Sometimes when we go to war, it is good, and sometimes when we go to war, it is bad. Most of the time some good and bad is done. So referring to war in the same line of thinking as abortion is useless. They're utterly different subjects. I might support one war or go against another, but all children that are born are clearly innocent of all crimes, and killing them is ALWAYS wrong.

I ask some simple questions and i get a loud speech?

One could certainly make the argument that a grown adult is more of a human (certainly in science's eyes and perhaps even in gods "eyes") then a 3 week old group of cells. Ill let you decide what you think about this. But that being said, Ive always felt its a double standard to be AGAINST abortion as a rule based on the fact that all human life is precious and one shouldnt kill and yet still be pro war and pro capital punishment etc. Theres a lot of gung ho republicans who feel that aborting a fetis is morally repugnant in the highest and yet feel we should rush off and invade any two bit country who looks sideways at us because we need to be "tough" and not "weak". Personally, I think there ARE reasons to kill sometimes so Im certainly not included in that small but noble group of people who are consistent across the board in their THOU SHALT NOT KILL approach to life. I respect people like that a great deal actually.

What it usually comes down to is not pro abortion or anti abortion but WHEN you think that group have cells has become a viable human being that really shouldn’t be messed with. For many it’s the 2nd trimester for others its birth or conception (some even think using any sort of contraception to KEEP a female from becoming impregnated is the equivalent of murder). So when is it for you? Does anyone here actually believe abortions should never be allowed once conception has happened?

[Valandil]

Originally Posted by Insidious Rex

What it usually comes down to is not pro abortion or anti abortion but WHEN you think that group have cells has become a viable human being that really shouldn’t be messed with. For many it’s the 2nd trimester for others its birth or conception (some even think using any sort of contraception to KEEP a female from becoming impregnated is the equivalent of murder). So when is it for you? Does anyone here actually believe abortions should never be allowed once conception has happened?

As long as there is doubt, is it not reasonable to err on the side of caution?

Otherwise we kill 3,800 babies every single day in America alone... on the chance that they may not be a human life!

[PippinTook]

hats off to you (again) Lief. I agree with everything you said, and its really amazing how you can get all those feelings into words (something I have a problem with)

Anywho, inked, you mentioned you thought it was okay for someone to have an abortion if the baby had a syndrome incompatable with life. Would this include Down Syndrome? My Aunt was pregnant and told that her baby had a 50/50 chance of having DS, and when they found out for sure she was asked whether or not they were going to abort. Well, she kept the baby, who did turn out to have Down Syndrome, and now he's a year old.

If that sort of thing is the case that you were referring to, would that not be like 'weeding out' the weak ones?

[inked]

brownjenkins,

I can bore you with the details on failure rates, if you wish!

The argument that if even one person has difficulty, then... really won't cut it in America. Contraceptive technology is widely and cheaply available. My experience is that of the 50% of pregnancies which occur in the USA and are touted as "unwanted" by Planned Parenthood means that the person making the "unplanned" statement means "I was wishing I wouldn't get pregnant but I wasn't doing anything to prevent it." Now, this is not an unplanned pregancy, it is a failure of wish-fulfilment. "I was engaging in sexual activity and I knew I could get pregnant, but I was wishing really, really, really hard it wouldn't happen!" is the more accurate statement. Not a week goes by that I don't hear this line of "lack of" thinking. What it devolves into is "NO, I didn't get my pills refilled until 5 days late and I didn't use back-up techniques." OR, "Well, I knew I should have come in for my shot, but I didn't think it would matter, so I didn't use back-up." Or, ...! I've heard 'em all.

But the reality is that these folks knew they were playing with a dangerous situation and didn't take any precautions. They just wished that the probability (~1/6 per cycle) wouldn't happen. And I wish that I didn't have to pay taxes or professional insurance, too, but guess what?...

This is the equivalent of driving under the influence of susbstances! "I wish that I don't get in a wreck or hurt anyone or kill anyone" is not an excuse for that behaviour. Why should it be for failure to employ contraception?

NOW, let me proclaim clearly that the natural consequence of unprotected sexual intercourse is dirty diapers! Any questions? Just let that be reminder mantra to all reproductive aged persons!!!

ON THE OTHER HAND, how many of us were "mistakes" or ungranted "wishes"?
Well, using the PP data, I'd say about half! -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------Being a pre-RoevsWade person in the USA markedly increased survivability!

[Telcontar_Dunedain]

Originally Posted by PippinTook

hats off to you (again) Lief. I agree with everything you said, and its really amazing how you can get all those feelings into words (something I have a problem with)

I have the same problem sometimes and this is one of them

Originally Posted by PippinTook

Anywho, inked, you mentioned you thought it was okay for someone to have an abortion if the baby had a syndrome incompatable with life. Would this include Down Syndrome? My Aunt was pregnant and told that her baby had a 50/50 chance of having DS, and when they found out for sure she was asked whether or not they were going to abort. Well, she kept the baby, who did turn out to have Down Syndrome, and now he's a year old.

I think this gives you a greater sense of relief that you didn't abort. It's the same for every child but with ones that are ill from birth it makes you know that when you see them fighting for their life, you can that you gave them that chance.

[brownjenkins]

Originally Posted by inked

The argument that if even one person has difficulty, then... really won't cut it in America. Contraceptive technology is widely and cheaply available.

there's a big difference between cheap and free... and many states have problems with minors being able to get contraception without consent... they even have problems with educating children about sex without consent of their parents

and what about the "morning after" pill... is that available to minors?

the difference between remembering to take the pill every day and having to get a depo shot once every three months is huge... even the most responsible and thoughful human being can forget to take the pill one morning... and maybe even think that they remembered... it's human nature

i also remember what it is like to be a kid, and i know what it is like to be a parent... it is very easy now for me to realize the magnitude of raising a child and the consequences of unprotected sex... but at fourteen? i don't think so

we've certainly come a long way on the education/contraception front in the past twenty years, but we have a long way to go

[Starr Polish]

Originally Posted by Linaewen

Curious, BJ, when would you consider a baby/fetus a 'life', then? Only once it's born?

I'm in the middle. Not entirely pro-choice, but by no means all out against abortion.

I'm about the same.

And Leif, I'd recheck your facts on the "increase in breast cancer" from an unbiased source. That sounds WAY off.

I know of people who've had abortions as a form of birth control. I also know someone who became pregnant because of a rape and was going to get an abortion (she miscarried three days before her appointment). Before I met her, I was absolutely against it, but I have a better understanding of why someone in that situation would, and I do not judge them...nor do I think they should be denied that option.

[BeardofPants]

Originally Posted by brownjenkins

i tend to side with the "viability" argument... when it is old enough to survive outside the mother, it could be considered "life" for abort/not abort decisions

That's sorta my viewpoint as well. So, I guess that answers your question, Leif.

Originally Posted by brownjenkins

also, how do you feel about the "morning after pill" as a form of birth control?

The morning-after pill is NOT intended as a contraceptive. It's a last resort to prevent pregnancy. It is only effective (95%) if taken immediately. If not, it only has a 65% chance of working. It is not a sufficient means of birth control.

Originally Posted by RÃ*an

*fumes about the use of the word "choice" again*

I'm not pro-abortion. :shrug: That's why I state choice, because there ARE choices, and a woman should be free to pick one.

[inked]

PippinTook,

"Anywho, inked, you mentioned you thought it was okay for someone to have an abortion if the baby had a syndrome incompatable with life. Would this include Down Syndrome? My Aunt was pregnant and told that her baby had a 50/50 chance of having DS, and when they found out for sure she was asked whether or not they were going to abort. Well, she kept the baby, who did turn out to have Down Syndrome, and now he's a year old."

Yes and no, PT. Down's has a wide penetrance or variation in expression. ~10% have severe cardiac malformations that may cause nonsurvivability. It is difficult to determine ahead of time.

Trisomy 18 has a lifespan of <6 months at best ( though I have heard of one survivor beyond 6 months).

There are about 4000 identified syndromes and defects with varying possibilities. Genetic counseling can be very helpful preconceptually to potential parents with known risks. When identified without prior risks in a current pregnancy, time becomes a factor, too.

My point was that relative to the number of pregnancies I have seen in 20+ years, these cases are not frequent. It is always an agonizing decision for the parents. I have had couples make decisions all over the range of possibilities. Same for rape and preganancy.

The argument for elective abortion's availability on the basis of few cases is difficult to maintain in my opinion. We are dealing with a indication for known condition versus (essentially) convenience. I am disputing that they are the same ethically or morally. I know that there are disagreements about that.

What do you think?

[Rían]

Originally Posted by BoP

I'm not pro-abortion. :shrug: That's why I state choice, because there ARE choices, and a woman should be free to pick one.

But there are other choices in life outside abortion, and that terminology really offends me (tho YOU don't offend me ) - the other side is called "anti-choice", like they are against all choice. It's a VERY loaded word, and unfairly used, IMO (but we already went thru this in the abortion terminology thread). Personally, I think the choices should be made BEFORE conception - either to use birth control or to abstain, and AFTER conception, it's too late to choose, because you're talking about another person's life at this point. Just like I can't choose to kill my 14-yr-old when he becomes inconvenient!

You are not pro-abortion, but you feel that abortion should be one option to choose from in that situation, right? So it seems to me that on the question of "Should abortion be legally available as one choice", you would be FOR this. I guess something like "pro-abortion-as-one-choice" would be more accurate, but to keep it short, pro-abortion seems more accurate than pro-choice to me (but prob. not to you).

[inked]

At the risk of sounding, like, totally callous, I think the best indication for retroactive abortion is teenagers! It is illegal now, though in Roman law the paterfamilia (father) had the right of absolute life and death over family members! A good thing it changed, huh?

[BeardofPants]

No Rian, because to me, "pro-abortion" becomes the loaded word, because it implies, to me, that the person is ONLY pro-abortion. Hence, choice. I'm afraid we're gonna have to agree to disagree on this one, sorry.

[Fenir_LacDanan]

Righto, my turn.

I have to say I'm Pro Choice. I live in Australia, where abortion is perfectly legal, and here there is no religious protesters harassing women and making death threats to doctors.

I don't have any great love for the fact that abortion is legal, nor do I hate it. What I do love is that any woman has the RIGHT to choose that course if she should so wish. It is her body, and as she must bear the burden, she should have the say.
Its all about rights, and before you conservative lot shout to high heaven, yes even the unborn babies "rights". It really boils down to when you consider a life to be a life. At the moment of conception? one month in, two? Should the four splitting cells inside the uterus have the same rights as a woman with billions? Tell me where do you draw the line?

And I think the arguments for abstinence are a joke. These are the same people who think of drug addicts as just criminals with weak moral fibres and not as people suffering from a medical disease (addiction?), and people who think that gays have no right to marry, because homosexuality is an abomination. That view is called the religious right, though how right it is, one tends to wonder...

[Fenir_LacDanan]

Originally Posted by BeardofPants

No Rian, because to me, "pro-abortion" becomes the loaded word, because it implies, to me, that the person is ONLY pro-abortion. Hence, choice. I'm afraid we're gonna have to agree to disagree on this one, sorry.

I fully agree. There is more than just the two extremes in this argument. Something about shades of grey...

[Rían]

Originally Posted by BeardofPants

No Rian, because to me, "pro-abortion" becomes the loaded word, because it implies, to me, that the person is ONLY pro-abortion. Hence, choice. I'm afraid we're gonna have to agree to disagree on this one, sorry.

Well, can you call my side "pro-life" then, because it implies, to me, that I feel that a fetus is a life. Shall I call your side what you like, and you call my side what I like? Is that fair?

[Bliss Ninny]Whatever your answer is, I really like you, you Kiwi you! [/Bliss Ninny]

You're one of my favorite Mooters, and I hope you'll join in my thread on "why you believe what you believe", because you really think things thru - I'd love to hear your responses to some questions! AND - I'd love to hear some of your questions to those in the Hot Seat!