Banning abortion doesn't make sense to me

[ditchdj]

Look at our world today. There's so many people our system can no longer adequately sustain itself. In Haiti people are eating "cakes" made from mud. More countries are enduring civil unrest because of soaring food and energy prices. Some think a life should be saved at all costs. I look at the QUALITY of life one would have. What good is it to let a kid be born if they're just gonna starve to death or suffer in poverty???

[DesignFox]

I agree that it should be about quality of life, not quantity. But some religions, and some cultures in the world haven't gotten that through their thick skulls, yet.

We aren't in the dark ages where people commonly died by the age of 25.

More to the point, what doesn't make sense to me about banning abortion, is that the decision is so intrusive. By saying no one can have an abortion, basically a few people are forcing their decisions on the rest of people. By giving people an option, those who don't agree with abortion can opt not to have one, but other people who would rather not face an unwanted pregnancy can opt for one. There's no making up anybody's mind for them.

I don't force my decision on people by saying, "you have a choice." Whereas people who say, "there is no choice! You MUST have this baby!" are forcing their decision on others.

Anyway, I would never force someone to have less children if they genuinely wanted them all and could afford to properly care for them...but I wish more people would consider their options when they obviously can't afford or don't want many (or any) children.

[Boozy]

More to the point, what doesn't make sense to me about banning abortion, is that the decision is so intrusive. By saying no one can have an abortion, basically a few people are forcing their decisions on the rest of people.

I totally agree with what you said here.

However, I'll add that if someone truly believes that abortion=murder, then I can understand why they wouldn't have a problem forcing that belief on others. Society has agreed that murder is wrong, so murder is illegal for all people, whether or not the murderer agrees.

I personally don't believe that abortion is murder in the classic sense, since a fetus is unable to survive outside of the womb. Women should have control over their own bodies, and it should be a private decision.

[miffed]

My thoughts have always been that if abortion was banned, women do still have a choice if they have a baby or not. Don't have sex. (I know that's not possible in cases of rape, but from what I have read only 5% of rapes result in pregnancy.)

I see banning abortion as encouraging/forcing people to take responsibilty for their actions. Don't want children? Think again about having recreational sex. That may seem awfully cold, but why shouldn't people start taking responsibilty for themselves?

[blas87]

Banning abortion is a bad idea. Remember those "Backdoor abortion clinics"? If abortion was banned, women would be going to great lengths and old fashioned wives tales to end their pregnancy. With dirty instruments and shady doctors, things could get really ugly.

I understand I'm a pro choicer and probably one sided here, but I just don't see what good that could do. If the choice is no longer there, some women may end up really hurting or killing themselves.

Besides, if you've never been in that position, you have no right to judge a woman by how she feels.

I thank God every day that I haven't gotten pregnant. I honest to God would NOT know what to do. I have no right to tell a woman what she can and cannot do to her own body.

Abortions are much safer procedures than they were years ago. I don't see how banning them is going to do any good, except keep a whole bunch of prolifers from protesting at clinics and harrassing employees of abortion clinics.

[DesignFox]

Anyone here who is against abortion should read The Cider House Rules.

That'll give you something to think about.

Don't watch the movie. It sucks and completely misses the mark. It never should have been made, let alone share the same title. (the book is also not for the squeamish)

[tropicsgoddess]

It is an outrage for somebody to have another person or entity's decision forced on them instead of being able to make their own personal choice of forgoing with an unwanted pregnancy and bringing an unwanted child in this world. Aborting or keeping the child should be a personal choice for the woman, not the choice of the government or religious entities. Besides that, there would be more backdoor abortions going on with higher incidences of women dying or having some serious damage to their reproductive organs. Just as bad, if not worse some would resort to the more rigged up abortions at home: knitting needles, crochet hooks, wire hangers or worse which could do a lot of damage to their reproductive organs or kill them.

[miyon]

My thoughts have always been that if abortion was banned, women do still have a choice if they have a baby or not. Don't have sex. (I know that's not possible in cases of rape, but from what I have read only 5% of rapes result in pregnancy.)

I see banning abortion as encouraging/forcing people to take responsibility for their actions. Don't want children? Think again about having recreational sex. That may seem awfully cold, but why shouldn't people start taking responsibility for themselves?

Its a little different then what you said but close. I did have sex, true. But my bf and me always used condoms. Well one time I guess the condom broke and my brilliant ex never mentioned it. I had no idea until I told him I was pregnant and he said "bet its from that time the condom broke"

There are times when I regret not having the baby. It would be about 15 yrs old by now. But a year or two later I found out I was mildly schizophrenic and have been in and out of hospitals. Being suicidal, hostel, violent and having hallucinations I don't think I would have been a good mother.

[Amethyst Hunter]

My thoughts have always been that if abortion was banned, women do still have a choice if they have a baby or not. Don't have sex. (I know that's not possible in cases of rape, but from what I have read only 5% of rapes result in pregnancy.)

I see banning abortion as encouraging/forcing people to take responsibilty for their actions. Don't want children? Think again about having recreational sex. That may seem awfully cold, but why shouldn't people start taking responsibilty for themselves?

Won't work. If (God forbid) abortion got banned, women would still find a way to get one: http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/health/7500237.stm

The majority of women DO take responsibility for their sex lives by using some form of protection, up to and including abstinence. But, sadly, accidents do happen. Condoms break; people grow up believing ignorant wives' tales they were taught, and so on. Why should those women be punished by being forced to have a child they don't want? By denying them autonomy over their own bodies, that would be saying "You are worth less than a man; you are still property to be controlled."

Notice, too, how it's ALWAYS the fault of the woman, never the man. People never tell men "Don't have sex/Keep your legs together." Hell, we *encourage* men to go out and screw around. Well, it takes two to tango. If we're going to wave the condescending "don't have sex" banner, it should be applied equally, not just singling out one gender and making them the scapegoats.

Speaking only for myself, I would have an abortion if the worst happened (I'm celibate by choice, so there's only one of two ways it could), and if abortion proved to be unattainable, I would do everything up to and including pitching myself down a flight of stairs to induce one, because I don't ever want kids (and certainly not a scumbag attacker's!) and I *will not* be held hostage in my own body.

[blas87]

AMEN TO YOU Amethyst! I just want to jump through the screen and give you a hug!

Now, when it comes to teens, we still have a lot of work to do on parents being involved in talking and teaching, as well as schools. I have my own opinions on sex...mainly that adults should be able to have sex married or not, as long as it's consentual and NO ONE is getting hurt emotionally or physically in the process.

But let's focus on one particular issue here......forcing people to take responsibility? My mother was being responsible when she was on the Pill, and I happened anyway. Either I was just a stubborn angry little sperm, or her Pill failed (I am inclined to believe both). Are you saying my mother keeping me was forcing her to live with her choice to have sex? Granted, my parents were married by then, but they DID NOT want kids at the time. My mom, being religious, believed God decided it was time and they had me anyway, not just to be responsible for their sex act, but because they changed their minds and wanted to.

[Lace Neil Singer]

As far as I'm concerned, I do not want children now and maybe not ever. If I got pregnant, I would have an abortion. My boyf is in full agreement and would put up the money so I could have it right away. For the record, I'm on the pill and he uses condoms; oh, and I am apparently not able to have a sterilisation, cuz I may "change my mind". -.-

Sex is instinctive. Saying women shouldn't have sex is extremely sexist, as Amethyst Hunter pointed out, and is ignoring rape. Are you saying that women ask to be raped, seeing as if they have sex then it's their fault they get pregnant? Maybe you don't mean it that way, but it could be taken that way.

Finally, if abortion was illegal there would be a higher incidence of infanticide. Either at birth, or accidently when the mother dumps her baby in a dustbin and it dies of exposure.

[BlaqueKatt]

We aren't in the dark ages where people commonly died by the age of 25.

But we do live in a time where many couples are infertile, and if there were no adoption fees(adoption fees can run from $10,000 to $40,000 dollars), there are 40 couples for each available child.* Why do you think there are so many international adoptions?

More to the point, what doesn't make sense to me about banning abortion Slavery, is that the decision is so intrusive. By saying no one can have an abortion Slave, basically a few people are forcing their decisions on the rest of people. By giving people an option, those who don't agree with abortion Slavery can opt not to have one, but other people who would rather not face an unwanted pregnancy working cotton fields can opt for one. There's no making up anybody's mind for them.

These are the same arguments slave owners used against abolitionists.

I don't force my decision on people by saying, "you have a choice." Whereas people who say, "there is no choice! You MUST have this baby!" are forcing their decision on others.

A baby is a separate entity from the mother, a car does not become part of the garage because it's parked there. And bread does not become part of the oven it's cooked in. The mother choosing to abort is forcing her decision on another living thing.

*My oldest son just turned 17, he was a product of rape, while I was in a foster home. Everyone around me pressured me to have an abortion, I refused, as my mother had tried to abort me(my twin, not so lucky). When I handed my son over to his parents, who had been trying for 10 years to have their own child, and had been on a waiting list to adopt for over 8 years, something good came from something evil, there was balance, and I was able to heal.


I can understand aborting for medical reasons, but not because the mother is poor, at that point why don't we just kill off all the poor people? If your argument is "they'll starve, or have poor quality of life"-why don't we kill off the homeless or the disabled, after all, they starve and have "poor quality of life" Just because a baby is unwanted by the woman carrying it doesn't mean it's unwanted by another woman that can't have a child.

My sister wanted an abortion because she didn't want to give up drinking for 9 months(she miscarried), and she lost a good friend over it, because her friend has been on a waiting list to adopt a child for over 5 years. My sister-in-law wanted an abortion because she "didn't want stretch marks"-her husband threatened to leave her if she went through with it(strict Catholic), she now has a wonderful son, and no stretch marks to speak of, and is trying for #2. One of my former coworkers had an abortion, and a hysterectomy at age 23 because the doctor ripped her uterus open with the suction tube-she almost bled to death, and wishes she had just kept the baby, she wanted more "just not now, maybe in a year or two."

[blas87]

I myself am more scared of an abortion than giving birth, and the only way I'd have an abortion is if I were sexually assaulted. I would chose adoption over abortion any day.

However, the reason I am so passionate about it is because no one has the right to judge others. Whether a girl grows to love the baby and want to keep it, or wants to be rid of it, is her choice and her partner's choice, not anyone else's.

[Greenday]

Here's my situation. My girlfriend and I would like to have sex. She would go on BC and we would use condoms. I'd say that's being pretty responsible. My girlfriend has one more year left of college, then she will be going to med school to become a doctor for the ER. Let's say we end up having sex and she gets pregnant. She'd have to quit med school. So that'd leave her with two options. Quit and have the kid. Or have an abortion, and go on to work in an ER and save a crapload of lives. What then?

[DesignFox]

So women should be slaves to their bodies, BK? Check. I got it. The argument I used doesn't apply to slavery because that involves other living, breathing, sentient human beings.

I'm sorry, but I disagree with you. A baby is not an entity as it cannot yet think for itself and it cannot survive outside of it's mother's body. I would rather see an unborn fetus aborted than a live infant left to rot in a garbage can.

I have horrible visions of desperate women doing terrible things to themselves or their unwanted infants. I'd rather those few desperate people have a choice than be forced to endure a pregnancy they never wanted.

Good for you for taking the adoption route. I give you a mad amount of credit for doing that, but not everyone believes that a fetus is a person. Not everyone wants to go through the many life changes that come with a pregnancy. Not everyone can afford the proper health care. Not everyone has a support network to help them through the bad times.

Some people are bad people. Some people will use abortion as a crutch. But that's not most people. And those bad people will find worse things to do in life, anyway. At least if the few bad apples abort their fetuses, it will be one less hungry, abused, neglected or murdered infant or child on the street.

[Pedersen]

But we do live in a time where many couples are infertile, and if there were no adoption fees(adoption fees can run from $10,000 to $40,000 dollars), there are 40 couples for each available child.* Why do you think there are so many international adoptions?

And the population of the planet is heading to critical mass. Which is part of why I've chosen never to have children (and have taken appropriate steps to make sure I won't). However, that doesn't change what will affect my wife.

These are the same arguments slave owners used against abolitionists.

Wow... You just compared someone controlling another person for life, allowing rampant abuse of the controlled person, the treating of said person as nothing more than property, all of that to a woman making a choice as to whether or not to allow herself to go through pregnancy. Good comparison. Nice, emotionally charged. Completely without logical value, of course, but who needs that?

A baby is a separate entity from the mother, a car does not become part of the garage because it's parked there. And bread does not become part of the oven it's cooked in. The mother choosing to abort is forcing her decision on another living thing.

Well, since we're going to talk about that, let's talk about people forcing their decisions on other living things, shall we?

Are you a vegan (not a vegetarian, a vegan)? If not, why not? By allowing yourself to consume meat and/or animal products, you are inflicting your choices on other living things. And, very arguably, some of those other living things have as much sentience when they are killed as do a new born baby (possibly even more).

If you're a vegetarian, what about the choices you make regarding the other farm animals? For instance, eggs? You're consuming the would-be babies of another species. What about dairy products? Cows are kept, hooked up to machines, drained of nutrients meant for their own children, and those nutrients are then bottled, curdled, and packed for your consumption.

Ah, but that doesn't matter, since they're other species, right? Then please change your wording to reflect your true intent. As it stands, you are complaining because a person:

choosing to abort is forcing her decision on another living thing.

And, just in case you do decide to change your wording, here's a few more examples that will remain within the species, all of which are examples of parents forcing their choices onto other living beings (their children):


Parents force children to have bedtimes.
Parents can (and often do) force their children into the same religion as the parents.
Parents have been known to let children die when medical treatment would have saved the life of the child, simply because the parents' religious belief denied that medical treatment (and this has happened legally).
Parents have (at the other extreme) gotten unnecessary medical treatment for their child (how many children are on Ritalin that do not need it?).
Parents have set up arranged marriages.
Parents have denied their children the right to see and/or date specific people based on the parents' reasons for doing so.
Parents have forced their children to put up with a specific babysitter. At times, this choice by the parents has resulted in the death of the child.


All of these are examples of children not having a choice. Some are more extreme than others. All of them affect the quality of life of the child, some positively, some negatively. Some of them amount to legalized murder in the right circumstances.

So, please tell me why the one choice being forced is any worse than any other forced choice, especially one that ends the life?

I'll not address the rest, since the rest is either your own personal experience, or people being upset about the potential reasons for an abortion.

[Norton]

I agree with DesignFox that her argument doesn't apply to slavery, nor would it apply to killing poor and homeless people for the same reason.

My thoughts have always been that if abortion was banned, women do still have a choice if they have a baby or not. Don't have sex.

I don't want children - I really really don't. Don't want to ever be pregnant at all. When I get married in the future I shouldn't consummate my marriage, then? I mean, I'm on BC, but something may go wrong as has happened to women before. So, no sex for me - ever?

[Rapscallion]

These are the same arguments slave owners used against abolitionists.


Really? I've not actually investigated the arguments used in the slavery vs anti-slavery debates way back when, since it was a done deal by the time I was born. Have you a link where such arguments were raised? I'm curious.

*My oldest son just turned 17, he was a product of rape, while I was in a foster home. Everyone around me pressured me to have an abortion, I refused, as my mother had tried to abort me(my twin, not so lucky). When I handed my son over to his parents, who had been trying for 10 years to have their own child, and had been on a waiting list to adopt for over 8 years, something good came from something evil, there was balance, and I was able to heal.

I have to admit that I admire you for that. However, the rapist's genes live on. According to the harshest laws of evolution, he won. I don't mean to say that your son is a potential rapist because of what happened, and I'm glad things turned out fine, but in the Darwinistic world your attacker had a victory.

However, based on your experiences, would you say that means other women shouldn't have the choice you were able to make?

Rapscallion

[BlaqueKatt]

Really? I've not actually investigated the arguments used in the slavery vs anti-slavery debates way back when, since it was a done deal by the time I was born. Have you a link where such arguments were raised?

Found a couple:
Herehttp://abolition.e2bn.org/slavery_112.html
here (http://www.pbs.org/wnet/slavery/teachers/readings7.html)
And even one from the BBC (http://www.bbc.co.uk/religion/ethics/slavery/ethics/justifications.shtml)
"Slaves are inferior beings"(fetus' are inferior)
"Slavery would be too difficult to abolish"
"Slavery is acceptable in this culture"
"Slavery is legal"(This is no argument at all - things can be legal and unethical at the same time.)

"Living in slavery is better than starving to death"

In circumstances of extreme poverty, living in slavery may be the least bad available option.

While slavery may be the least bad option for an individual, this doesn't justify slavery, but indicates that action should be taken to provide other better options to individuals.

replace the word "slavery" with abortion-exact same arguments

I have to admit that I admire you for that. However, the rapist's genes live on. According to the harshest laws of evolution, he won.

He was married and already had three kids of his own.

Wow... You just compared someone controlling another person for life, allowing rampant abuse of the controlled person, the treating of said person as nothing more than property, all of that to a woman making a choice as to whether or not to allow herself to go through pregnancy.

I also watched one of my male friends go through a total nervous breakdown because his "girlfriend" mentally abused him and controlled him with "if you don't do what I want I'll kill your unborn baby" He did everything she demanded, she decided she didn't want the baby and aborted. Even after he begged her to have the baby and give it to him. He's still in therapy, that was 10 years ago.

Why does a father have no rights whatsoever? Except the right to pay child support, it's his child as well.

no right to force an abortion if he doesn't want to be a father(but is forced to pay support), and no right to force the birth of a child that is rightly his. It's not just about the mother and baby-there is usually a third person involved(unless it's the second coming).

Are you a vegan (not a vegetarian, a vegan)? If not, why not? By allowing yourself to consume meat and/or animal products, you are inflicting your choices on other living things.

A plant isn't alive? Wow that's news to me.

I don't believe in killing unless a life is in danger*, or someone of sound mind requests to be euthinized(which is why I don't give money to right-to-life, they do not support euthinesia, I may volunteer my time on occasion, but that's to man a booth advocating birth control and adoption over aborting).

*Per certain medical conditions I cannot be a vegetarian/Vegan-thus I am killing because my life is in danger.

So, please tell me why the one choice being forced is any worse than any other forced choice, especially one that ends the life?

are you seriously comparing enforcing a bedtime to ending a life?

[Difdi]

My mother is a past chapter president of the national organization for women. She has a favorite phrase she uses on anti-abortionists. It's quite funny when she says it to a man: "Those who don't want to have abortions shouldn't have them" :D

[Depot Denizen]

I sense a lot of hostility in some posters. It is a very emotional issue, however, reason and logic can persevere.

I believe that everyone has the right to their own body. If you want to boil it down, I'm pro-choice. I think abortion should be the last resort, after counseling and consultation. Accidents do happen, rape notwithstanding.

[Zyanya]

But we do live in a time where many couples are infertile, and if there were no adoption fees(adoption fees can run from $10,000 to $40,000 dollars), there are 40 couples for each available child.* Why do you think there are so many international adoptions?

This was an argument a doctor gave me for refusing to allow me to be sterilized.

These are the same arguments slave owners used against abolitionists.

No, it isn't. Learn a bit of history. Then a bit of biology.

Start here - http://www.thelizlibrary.org/liz/004.htm

A baby is a separate entity from the mother, a car does not become part of the garage because it's parked there. And bread does not become part of the oven it's cooked in. The mother choosing to abort is forcing her decision on another living thing.

For someone who claims to have worked in a clinic, your knowledge of human biology is woefully inaccurate.

I can understand aborting for medical reasons, but not because the mother is poor, at that point why don't we just kill off all the poor people? If your argument is "they'll starve, or have poor quality of life"-why don't we kill off the homeless or the disabled, after all, they starve and have "poor quality of life" Just because a baby is unwanted by the woman carrying it doesn't mean it's unwanted by another woman that can't have a child.

The only reason necessary to be allowed to have an abortion is 'I do not want to have a baby'. End of discussion. If I do not want a baby, you do not have the right to force me to have one.

One of my former coworkers had an abortion, and a hysterectomy at age 23 because the doctor ripped her uterus open with the suction tube-she almost bled to death, and wishes she had just kept the baby, she wanted more "just not now, maybe in a year or two."

yeah, um. don't believe you. For starters, this sort of event is so rare as to be newsworthy.

Per certain medical conditions I cannot be a vegetarian/Vegan-thus I am killing because my life is in danger.

Don't believe you there either. There is nothing in meat that you cannot get from vegetarian sources.

Think again about having recreational sex. That may seem awfully cold, but why shouldn't people start taking responsibilty for themselves?

Gee, thank you. I'll be sure to let my husband know he gets to sleep on the couch until I hit menopause.

Finally, if abortion was illegal there would be a higher incidence of infanticide. Either at birth, or accidently when the mother dumps her baby in a dustbin and it dies of exposure.

It is worth noting that instances of SIDS dropped dramatically when abortion was legalized.

[Pedersen]

While slavery may be the least bad option for an individual, this doesn't justify slavery, but indicates that action should be taken to provide other better options to individuals.

Except for one detail, I actually wholly agree with you.

Your solution is to make slaves out of people for at least 9 months out of their lives. You would make one person wholly subservient to another. Specifically, the mother gets to be subservient to the fetus. The mother no longer gets a say in what she will do, she must obey the needs of the fetus. She is now a slave to someone else.

If you want to compare slavery arguments, you might as well compare the rest of it.

The response of "Well, don't have sex" isn't exactly a very fair option. Women who get raped face the possibility of getting pregnant from that encounter.

What about a married couple? Suppose that couple wishes to remain childless. That couple should deprive themselves of the joy of making love, even if they were to take every precaution to prevent pregnancy? After all, accidents happen.

What if the prospective mother will find herself in dire straits because of it? I'll use my wife as an example: She was diagnosed with rheumatoid arthritis in her early twenties. The medications she has to take to control this are serious medications. At one point, she was on Vioxx. In order for her to carry a pregnancy to term, she would have to stop pretty well all pain controlling medications for the next 9 months. Sure, she could go as strong as something like Advil, but the arthritis continues to ravage her body for that entire time. She won't die from it, but she will suffer excruciating pain that will involve her hands being twisted in ways that hands were not meant to turn. She will wake up every morning in pain, and spend her days in pain, going to sleep in pain. The only difference will be the quantity of it.

Now, the people who are using the "don't have sex" argument are getting into this couple's bedroom and telling them that they can't do this. Who is making a choice for the others now?

Why does a father have no rights whatsoever? Except the right to pay child support, it's his child as well.

Why doesn't a prospective mother have rights to force a man to donate his sperm?

Until such time as it actually can survive outside the womb, it's part of the woman's body. You might not want to call it that, but it is. It is no different than a kidney in that regard. Remove the organ, it dies. Same for the fetus.

As such, that choice has to belong to the woman, and the woman alone. Why doesn't the father get to choose to abort? Well, bluntly put, he made the choice to have unprotected sex (yes, it's possible for female on male rape to occur which will result in the female getting pregnant, but that's extremely difficult to do. We can pursue that topic further if you'd like). As such, he's already made a choice to accept the risk of her getting pregnant.

Finally, assume he thought she was using the pill: I firmly believe that, if he can prove that the pregnancy was planned without his knowledge or consent that he should be able to sever all parental rights and obligations, and require her to deal with the consequences.

A plant isn't alive? Wow that's news to me.

I chose to exclude plants deliberately, since, unless you're Zhaan (or another Delvian), you're not very likely to worry about eating plants. They don't move, they don't look cute at all, and have a very hard time engendering feelings in people that they directly trace to a specific plant.

Of course, you're free to try to poke holes in my argument by noting that I left plants out. But that's rather much a straw man, don't you think?

*Per certain medical conditions I cannot be a vegetarian/Vegan-thus I am killing because my life is in danger.

So, now we have some added insight: You are okay with enforcing an unborn fetus right to live for the same reason you should be allowed to live. Neither of you can live without forcibly taking nutrients from others that could result in severe damage to the other, even death. But that's okay, because your life will be preserved.

are you seriously comparing enforcing a bedtime to ending a life?

Nice one again! Nice, emotionally charged, and, for added benefit, takes a quote out of context. Maybe the rest of the quote should have been added in again, especially since I was actually showing how society was willing to allow certain choices to be forced on people who are incapable of defending against those choices, and then asking you why that was okay, but the choice for an abortion was not.

So, I have to give you credit. Without actually answering a couple of those questions, you managed to paint me with a rather negative brush. I'm impressed. But, maybe this time, you can answer those questions, please?

yeah, um. don't believe you. For starters, this sort of event is so rare as to be newsworthy.

The fact that you have not heard of it does not mean that it didn't happen.

Don't believe you there either. There is nothing in meat that you cannot get from vegetarian sources.

If that's the case, then why are cats unable to subsist on a purely vegetarian diet? They need the taurine, which only comes from meat. Entirely possible that people need it too (for one example). Another example is proteins that people need but are unable to get in sufficient quantities from a vegetarian/vegan diet.

The fact that you are unaware of such conditions speaks more poorly of you than it does of BlaqueKatt.

[DesignFox]

Won't work. If (God forbid) abortion got banned, women would still find a way to get one: http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/health/7500237.stm


Interesting link Amethyst. Lots to think about there.

Mostly, it is disturbing because some of these places can be highly irreputable. The one site seems like the medication is legit and safe, but only used appropriately- which we all know, not everyone will have the knowledge to use it safely or even use it as instructed.

Back-alley abortions are frightening. It is scary in and of itself that these women feel so hopeless that they turn to mutilation because they feel they have no other option. :(

[Zyanya]

The fact that you have not heard of it does not mean that it didn't happen.

Multiple rare, unheard of things in a single post? Given this poster's history of personal experience with rare, almost unheard of things? Uh-huh.

Guess what? The type of surgery she listed is far safer than childbirth.

The fact that you are unaware of such conditions speaks more poorly of you than it does of BlaqueKatt.

Humans are not cats.

But if you can actually name the condition, go right ahead. I'm waiting.

Another example is proteins that people need but are unable to get in sufficient quantities from a vegetarian/vegan diet.

And yet many vegetarians and vegans do just fine. Seems that if there was some mystical protein found only in flesh that humans needed, several entire cultures would have gone extinct. Sorry, but her post tripped my BS meter.

[Rapscallion]

Found a couple:
Herehttp://abolition.e2bn.org/slavery_112.html
here (http://www.pbs.org/wnet/slavery/teachers/readings7.html)
And even one from the BBC (http://www.bbc.co.uk/religion/ethics/slavery/ethics/justifications.shtml)
"Slaves are inferior beings"(fetus' are inferior)
"Slavery would be too difficult to abolish"
"Slavery is acceptable in this culture"
"Slavery is legal"(This is no argument at all - things can be legal and unethical at the same time.)


Thanks - I'd not been aware of some of the arguments.

Out of interest, why compare it to slavery? I can see the link in the style of arguments used, but at that point it becomes a way to garner emotion to the user's side. Just because one thing is generally accepted as wrong doesn't mean to say that another for which the arguments are similar is wrong.

To put it another way, the arguments for owning guns could be compared to the arguments for owning slaves in the same fashion. There are quite a number of people on here who would argue until their typing fingers are eroded away to defend their right to own a gun.

I don't accept the argument of comparing it to slavery. Interesting information, though.


He was married and already had three kids of his own.


His genes spread even further, then. I don't condone what he did, and I hope he paid heavily in jail, but in evolutionary terms he's a winner.

Rapscallion

[Pedersen]

Humans are not cats.

They're not? Damn, there goes that theory. Thanks for clarifying.

You're right, I used them as an example, and inappropriately.

But if you can actually name the condition, go right ahead. I'm waiting.

B12 deficiency. You can not get B12 from plants, period. Requires dairy, eggs, or meat.

That's for starters. Protein, iron, calcium, and zinc are other proteins which you must plan for adequately. These are difficult to get sufficient quantities of on a vegetarian diet. Not impossible, to be sure, but definitely more difficult.

Depending on your specific allergies and physiological makeup, you may have a harder time digesting foods in a purely vegetarian/vegan diet, thus resulting in your having a harder time maintaining a degree of health.

So, yes, some conditions will require a non-vegetarian diet.

Common? No. But they do exist.

[Zyanya]

That's for starters. Protein, iron, calcium, and zinc are other proteins which you must plan for adequately. These are difficult to get sufficient quantities of on a vegetarian diet. Not impossible, to be sure, but definitely more difficult.

No, not really.

http://www.nutritionadvocate.com/story/b12breakthrough.html

It's not hard to live on a vegan diet. Many manage it and remain quite healthier, even healthier than many omnivores.



But when someone says they had a child by rape (an incredible statistical rarity), worked in a CPC so knows all about abortion (but still has many of the facts wrong), knows someone who had a hysterectomy due to an abortion (an incredible statistical rarity), has some sort of strange condition that prevents her from living on vegetation (pretty much a statistical impossibility) and is trying to use all this supposed anecdotal evidence to make claims for abortion being wrong?

It has not escaped me that many forced-birthers claim to have worked in clinics and thus seen all the 'heartache abortion causes'. In fact, the reason so many make this claim is because forced-birthers are encouraged to make this claim in an attempt to lend false authority to their arguments.

[Rapscallion]

I would think that working in such places is farily traumatic and some people have to leave because they can't deal with it. Some will turn to campaigning against it, and probably more than the number of campaigners from people from other walks of life. I suspect that accounts for some of the apparent number of people who say they have worked there.

I wouldn't like to suspect people of lying without proof of it.

Rapscallion

[Zyanya]

I would think that working in such places is farily traumatic and some people have to leave because they can't deal with it. Some will turn to campaigning against it, and probably more than the number of campaigners from people from other walks of life. I suspect that accounts for some of the apparent number of people who say they have worked there.


But people who have actually worked at a clinic know the difference between a CPC and a clinic.

[Pedersen]

Amusing. I'm choosing to discredit her arguments themselves. You're choosing to try to discredit her.

http://www.nutritionadvocate.com/story/b12breakthrough.html

It's not hard to live on a vegan diet. Many manage it and remain quite healthier, even healthier than many omnivores.

They may well live a healthier life. However, they do so by virtue of planning. On the flip side, someone who does not lead a vegetarian lifestyle does not need to plan so much.

As such, it is more difficult to live on a vegan diet. If you wish to dispute that, please do. I've already got sufficient links about people who failed to plan their vegetarian diet, and wound up with serious health issues. But, take it to a new thread. We're way off topic for this one.

But when someone says they had a child by rape (an incredible statistical rarity),

Child by rape, statistics from 1998: 25,000 pregnancies out of 333,000 rapes (see here (http://linkinghub.elsevier.com/retrieve/pii/S0749379700002439)). That's 1 in 13, or 7.5% of the time. Yes, the statistic is old, but I have no reason to believe it will have changed significantly since then. And 7.5% is hardly an "incredible statistical rarity".

worked in a CPC so knows all about abortion (but still has many of the facts wrong),

I've seen claims from you that she has many facts wrong, but no details on what those facts might be. Please educate me.

knows someone who had a hysterectomy due to an abortion (an incredible statistical rarity),

Given. I was unable to find evidence one way or the other on this topic, as getting statistics on complications from abortions is very difficult, and even more so from neutral sources. The best I could find was that the accepted number for total complications (not just complications resulting in hysterectomy) is around 2%.

has some sort of strange condition that prevents her from living on vegetation (pretty much a statistical impossibility)

B12 deficiency. Difficulty in absording iron from non-meat sources (I've known some vegetarians who had to revert to meat eating for just this reason). Any number of other possibilities.

Now, consider this: How many things about you are statistical rarities? Probably more than you admit. To use BK as an example, it's very possible that she, after being raped and going through the pregnancy that resulted, went through a period of working for CPC clinics (to ensure that other women would have the choice she denied herself), though not necessarily in the operating room (which would allow her to work there, and still have facts about the procedures wrong). The final straw for her might have been seeing a young woman come in that had this happen to her. Out of some sense of trying to help, she became friends with this woman.

And the vegetarian bit? Just an annoying coincidence.

If you want to discredit her, go ahead. Just do a more convincing job.

[BlaqueKatt]

But when someone says they had a child by rape (an incredible statistical rarity),


Really? The american journal of obstetrics (http://pt.wkhealth.com/pt/re/ajog/abstract.00000447-199608000-00018.htm;jsessionid=L9pQ2LhDJyvD2yfLzPpLQS6GyDgQP LpqS1xTntVyjjs1JQVTRcQJ!536197444!181195628!8091!-1) doesn't think so(and it's a reason I fully believe "Plan B" should be readily available*)
"CONCLUSIONS: Rape-related pregnancy occurs with significant frequency. It is a cause of many unwanted pregnancies and is closely linked with family and domestic violence."

worked in a CPC so knows all about abortion (but still has many of the facts wrong)
A crisis Pregnancy center is NOT a clinic, there were no doctors on staff, we were a clearinghouse for information, and assistance. We helped make dr. appointments for both pre-natal care and for medical abortions. We offered maternity clothing and baby clothing if that was asked for. We went to appointments for support if that was asked of us.

You are the one claiming I said I worked in a clinic-no medical training=no clinic work

knows someone who had a hysterectomy due to an abortion (an incredible statistical rarity),

Not according to the world health orginazation (http://www.who.int/reproductive-health/publications/clinical_mngt_abortion_complications/chap5.html)
"The most common injury is uterine perforation "

has some sort of strange condition that prevents her from living on vegetation (pretty much a statistical impossibility)

Try having a latex allergy, along with Iron deficiency anemia, and vitamin B12 deficiency anemia(very low platelet count-I bleed forever).

Foods I can't eat(due to latex allergy cross-reaction):
almond, apple, apricot, avocado, banana, raw carrot, raw celery, chestnut, cherry, dill, fig, ginger, kiwi, mango, melon, oregano, papaya, passion fruit, peach, pear, plum, raw potato, sage, raw tomato,walnut, passion fruit, grapefruit, mushroom, bell pepper, mango, pineapple, celery, cantaloupe, buckwheat, fig, lettuce, orange, peanut, strawberry, mustard, watermelon, bamboo shoot, coconut, loquat, peppermint, soybean, nectarine, Eggplant, Cherimoya

List compiled from:
Allergy Clinic.uk (http://www.allergyclinic.co.uk/latex.htm)
National Institute of health Sciences (http://dmd.nihs.go.jp/latex/cross-e.html)
and Latex-Fruit Allergy By Daniel More, MD, (http://allergies.about.com/od/medicationallergies/a/latexfood.htm)


But I'm sure you know more than all of these people....


*no I don't beleive that hormonal birth control is completely safe, but I do feel it's the best option we have. And I would much rather have plan "b" available at you local supermarket, than see a baby aborted.

[Rapscallion]

B12 deficiency. Difficulty in absording iron from non-meat sources (I've known some vegetarians who had to revert to meat eating for just this reason). Any number of other possibilities.

Gravekeeper springs to mind.

Rapscallion

[Boozy]

Actually, speaking of CS members, I believe that Princess Snake has a digestive disorder that means she can only eat meat and animal products. I'm sure her disorder is rare, but there you go.

I've gotten to know BlaqueKatt's opinions on things pretty well by reading her posts on this forum, and I suspect that she'd be a vegetarian if she could. She's mentioned being Buddhist (who as a general rule don't eat meat if possible) and she's expressed a strong pro-life stance in threads about both abortion and the death penalty. But that's just my guess. She can speak for herself on the issue, and she has.

Now let's return to focusing on the arguments themselves, not the people making them.

[Lace Neil Singer]

One more point... childbirth carries just as many risks as abortion does, yet a lot of pro-lifers choose to gloss over that fact. More so, depending on the hospital; how clean it is, how many midwifes available and how many beds in the maternity ward.

Also, I'm sorry that you personally don't want an abortion, Blaquekatt; but you are not me and your circumstances are not mine. I have suffered from clinical depression in the past and looking within myself, I can see myself putting a pillow over a child's face if it didn't stop crying. It scares me, to be honest; I also know that I would not make a good mother so I choose not to become one. Shame a lot of women who physically and/or sexually abuse their children, neglect them, or allow their baby daddy to inflict abuse on their offspring didn't do the same.

Grim reading:

http://www.wrongdiagnosis.com/c/childbirth/deaths.htm

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/20427256/

http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2007/oct/12/health.healthandwellbeing1

[Zyanya]

A crisis Pregnancy center is NOT a clinic, there were no doctors on staff, we were a clearinghouse for information, and assistance

A Crisis Pregnancy Center is a clearinghouse of lies and dramatically falsified stories designed to terrify and pressure women out of abortions due to ignorance, religious bigotry, and downright stupidity. And yes, many of them do indeed claim to be clinics.

http://www.prochoice.org/about_abortion/facts/cpc.html

I went to one early in my pregnancy with my son. Scary lying fucking bastards. If anything, they nearly came close to convincing me to abort.

The funny thing is, all of the stories you are telling here (having a son by rape, counseling a victim of a botched abortion, nearly being an abortion victim yourself, having to battle doctors to prevent them from forcing you to abort) are all taught to CPC workers as ways to convince/intimidate women to not have an abortion.

These are some of the lies you've been spreading about abortion -

I would like to add also think of the MEDICAL issues(at least in the states)
1, the abortion industry has NO REGULATION-they "police themselves"
2, a doctor that performs abortions is the only doctor not REQUIRED BY LAW to have malpractice insurance
3, abortion is the ONLY medical procedure where INFORMED CONSENT is not MANDATED by law

my other issue is there are studies that show after an abortion it becomes very difficult to concieve/carry a child to term(a D&C results in scar tissue that forms over the fallopean tubes resulting in an 85% chance of ectopic pregnancy), but women going in for the procedure are never told this.. They are also not told about the 17 seperate studies done in sweden and china that show abortion increases the risk of breast cancer by up to 280%. The branch of the CDC that is responsible for reporting injury and death statistics for abortion has not released any data since 1988-why is that? And why are all the staff at the CDC that are in charge of collection the data employed at or investors/owners of abortion clinics. Would you let the head of a tobacco comapany run the american lung association, and compile reports on the safety of tobacco? That's what the CDC does for abortion, the reports on safety cite other studies written by other people in their branch exclusively-NO outside sources at all.


So many falsehoods and repeatedly debunked claims. In fact, nothing in the above paragraphs are true.


Really? The american journal of obstetrics doesn't think so(and it's a reason I fully believe "Plan B" should be readily available*)
"CONCLUSIONS: Rape-related pregnancy occurs with significant frequency. It is a cause of many unwanted pregnancies and is closely linked with family and domestic violence."

Actual numbers? 5% per rape. That is there in your own article. You really should read things before posting them and claiming they support your argument.

Oh, and on the statistical rarity side of the abortion argument, didn't you also claim to be an abortion survivor?

And I think you'd feel differently if you had found out your mother had tried to abort you, and the doctor screwed up-he killed my twin though. I was born 5 months after my mother's attempt to abort me-no one realised she was still pregnant until around 6 months.

Hmmmm...... Kind of just amazing there.

Oh, and this -

Also to realise where I'm coming from-I was told no less than 6 times by 4 different doctors to abort my son due to the "possibility" that I'd have complications delivering(apparently they had never heard of a c-section)-the last time I was told I should have an abortion by a medical doctor was when I was 7 months pregnant-at 7 months I could have scheduled a c-section and he would've been in NICU, but I was told to have either a saline or partial birth abortion. They tried getting my husband to sign the consent forms for it telling him I might die during delivery if I didn't have one immediately.

Apparently no one told you that saline abortions aren't done anymore (they were rare even back in the 70s), but this story also seems to be suspect. ALL the horrible evil doctors wanted to perform an abortion on you even though the baby was viable and a C-section would be easier? And they even tried tricking your husband into agreeing? Even though that would have opened them up to massive lawsuits?

Oh, and partial birth abortion is not a medical term. Doctors don't use it. It's a propaganda term.



Now, maybe all of this is true and you've just been the most unfortunate person on the planet regarding abortions. But I'd like to think if I had that many negative encounters with something I'd actually educate myself on the reality.




I'll take back what I said regarding the Vegan thing, though based on a cursory read through the data provided, you could still easily consume enough vegetation to provide for all of your needs. It would simply require more effort on your part.

I've gotten to know BlaqueKatt's opinions on things pretty well by reading her posts on this forum,

As have I, and considering that one of her 'heroes' is a self-professed 'bitch-beater', I take just about everything she says with a grain of salt.



One more point... childbirth carries just as many risks as abortion does, yet a lot of pro-lifers choose to gloss over that fact.

Even more outright lie about it.



Amusing. I'm choosing to discredit her arguments themselves. You're choosing to try to discredit her.

The arguments have already been discredited, and repeatedly. And yet she keeps repeating them even after being shown they are false. I'm tired of such.

As for the rest, it's kind of like calling shenanigans on the main site. I might be willing to believe a customer came in and called you a racist slur. But if your story continues with 'so I jumped over the counter and smacked the bitch, then told her to leave before I called the cops, but she wouldn't, she tried to hit me, so I called the cops and she got arrested and haha bitch got what she deserved', I'm not exactly going to buy your story. It's a little much. Sure, it could happen. But the odds of it happening are small. And if you claim it happened more than once, well.....

[Zyanya]

There is a girl who suffers from schizophrenia. Without her medication, she is a danger to herself and others. Her medication carries a 99% risk of serious fetal deformity or death. If she were pregnant, she would have to forgo her medication.

She has been to 11 doctors, and none will sterilize her, citing that 'she'll change her mind when Mr. Right comes along'.

If my friend gets pregnant, how do you propose she be prevented from getting an abortion? If she does succeed in utilizing one of the many natural methods that exist (or simply remains on her medication knowing it will most likely kill the fetus), what punishment do you propose she be handed?

[ArenaBoy]

No, not really.

http://www.nutritionadvocate.com/story/b12breakthrough.html

It's not hard to live on a vegan diet. Many manage it and remain quite healthier, even healthier than many omnivores.



But when someone says they had a child by rape (an incredible statistical rarity), worked in a CPC so knows all about abortion (but still has many of the facts wrong), knows someone who had a hysterectomy due to an abortion (an incredible statistical rarity), has some sort of strange condition that prevents her from living on vegetation (pretty much a statistical impossibility) and is trying to use all this supposed anecdotal evidence to make claims for abortion being wrong?

It has not escaped me that many forced-birthers claim to have worked in clinics and thus seen all the 'heartache abortion causes'. In fact, the reason so many make this claim is because forced-birthers are encouraged to make this claim in an attempt to lend false authority to their arguments.

You are so effing right that it pains me to see peoples responses to you on this thread!!!!!

******** YEAH!!!!!!

[IDrinkaRum]

I am against abortion. Personal reasons, no need to get into it here. I'm not willing to allow abortion to be banned, but if it is, I wouldn't be upset about it.

I had PPD (Post Partum Depression). It lasted so long (2 years before I go help), that it went from PPD to Depression. (And I've been depressed for as long as I can remember). I have General Anxiety Disorder. I have Emotional Anxiety Disorder. I have panic attacks. I have OCD. I have a daughter who has Autism. I have a husband who undoubtedly has a narcissistic personality disorder and is obese with a hernia that keeps growing and he isn't doing anything about it. And that doesn't include my mother (who has the martyr complex down pat), my father, and my sister (who has the martyr complex down pat even more than my mother). And don't get me started on my ILs.

We're all screwed up. I would like another child. Before my daughter, Kelly, was born, I didn't know I was depressed (and had a predilection for on and off depression through out the years - my mother thinks I make all this $hit up anyways). I've had PPD in the past, and I believe because I've had it once, the chances of having it again will increase. I'm obese, on high blood pressure medication and Lexapro. If I found out I was pregnant tomorrow, I would celebrate. Knowing all that is wrong with me. I'd still carry the baby to term.

Others might think I'd need to abort, but I wouldn't. My choice.

It's my choice to decide to abort or not to abort.

I understand BK's arguments. I know someone who falls into the category of statistical rarities, so it doesn't come as a surprise to me.

[anriana]

As a vegetarian of many years who has flirted with veganism, I think any American* claiming it is easy to live as either has never tried it or lives on a commune or is filthy rich and has a full-time chef.

*I say American because that is the only country whose food culture I am familiar with.


As for people who are saying that if we banned abortion, all sorts of bad things would happen, get a global perspective! Look at Latin America and Africa.


Furthermore, if abortion was banned, the next thing they'd be going after would be birth control itself (and they're already starting on that.)

[Zyanya]

As for people who are saying that if we banned abortion, all sorts of bad things would happen, get a global perspective! Look at Latin America and Africa.

Okay, let's.

The U.S.-based rights group said women with risky pregnancies whose lives might be saved by aborting the fetus were dying because of the ban on terminations in any circumstance.
http://uk.reuters.com/article/latestCrisis/idUKN0240981920071002

Newsweek added: “In fact, childbirth is the leading cause of death and disability for women of reproductive age--more dangerous than heart disease and AIDS. And children left behind are the secondary victims. They’re more likely to die because they are motherless.”
http://www.planetwire.org/details/7482

I have spoken to women who used knives, knitting needles, rubber tubes, even pieces of wood to pry open their uteruses. Some got access to abortive medicines that in theory lower the possibility of direct infection but that caused serious complications when they took them without medical assistance. Affluent women suffered fewer traumatic ordeals, often traveling to the U.S. for the procedure or sneaking off to upscale private Latin America clinics where, on paper, they had surgery for appendicitis.
http://articles.latimes.com/2006/mar/21/opinion/oe-molmann21

It is estimated about 400,000 clandestine abortions are carried out in Colombia each year.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/4760595.stm

In a region where there is little sex education and social taboos keep unmarried women from seeking contraception, criminalizing abortion has not made it rare, only dangerous. Rich women can go to private doctors. The rest rely on quacks or amateurs or do it themselves. Up to 5,000 women die each year from abortions in Latin America, and hundreds of thousands more are hospitalized.
http://www.iht.com/articles/2006/01/06/opinion/edlatam.php

But despite such legal risks, Latin America continues to experience abortion rates that are much higher than most countries where it is legal.
There are an estimated 4 million abortions every year across the region. Up to 200,000 clandestine abortions take place in Chile every year--twice as many as in Canada, which has 100,000 a year--and Chile has half the population.
http://www.womensenews.org/article.cfm/dyn/aid/2086/context/archive

The World Health Organization (WHO) estimates that 3.7 million unsafe abortions are conducted every year in Latin America and the Caribbean, which comes down to nearly one abortion for every three live births. In Africa, where 99% of these interventions are done illegally, the number of unsafe abortions is estimated at 4.2 million, representing one abortion for seven live births.
http://esciencenews.com/articles/2008/06/04/access.abortion.africa.and.latin.america.a.questio n.public.health.and.social.inequality


Oh, dear. It seems that when you ban abortion, many bad things DO happen.

[BlaqueKatt]

A Crisis Pregnancy Center is a clearinghouse of lies and dramatically falsified stories designed to terrify and pressure women out of abortions due to ignorance, religious bigotry, and downright stupidity.

And as I stated in the previous thread-mine was not like that-but you fail to beleive anything could be outside of your preconceived notions/personal experiances

The funny thing is, all of the stories you are telling here (having a son by rape, counseling a victim of a botched abortion, nearly being an abortion victim yourself, having to battle doctors to prevent them from forcing you to abort) are all taught to CPC workers as ways to convince/intimidate women to not have an abortion.

Considering we WERE not allowed to give our opinion to anyone-which I also stated in the previous thread.





So many falsehoods and repeatedly debunked claims. In fact, nothing in the above paragraphs are true.

The branch of the CDC that is responsible for reporting injury and death statistics for abortion has not released any data since 1988-
if none of these are true show me these numbers-for the US-previously you provided stats for austrailia(which are not covered by the CDC)

National Center for Biotechnology Information
Induced abortions and risk of ectopic pregnancy. (http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/8582994?ordinalpos=1&itool=EntrezSystem2.PEntrez.Pubmed.Pubmed_ResultsP anel.Pubmed_DiscoveryPanel.Pubmed_Discovery_RA&linkpos=3&log$=relatedarticles&logdbfrom=pubmed)
"Findings point to an increased risk of ectopic pregnancy after induced abortion."
Impact of induced abortions on subsequent pregnancy outcome (http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/11702834?ordinalpos=1&itool=EntrezSystem2.PEntrez.Pubmed.Pubmed_ResultsP anel.Pubmed_DiscoveryPanel.Pubmed_Discovery_RA&linkpos=1&log$=relatedarticles&logdbfrom=pubmed)

"CONCLUSION: This study suggests that a history of induced abortion increases the risk of preterm delivery, particularly for women who have had repeated abortions. The respective role of the surgical and medical techniques used for induced abortions needs to be explored."

yup all lies



Actual numbers? 5% per rape. That is there in your own article. You really should read things before posting them and claiming they support your argument.

"CONCLUSIONS: Rape-related pregnancy occurs with significant frequency. It is a cause of many unwanted pregnancies and is closely linked with family and domestic violence."

this was their conclusion from the study-apparently you didn't read their conclusion. 5% is one in 20-that is pretty high actually.

and this

Child by rape, statistics from 1998: 25,000 pregnancies out of 333,000 rapes (see here (http://linkinghub.elsevier.com/retrieve/pii/S0749379700002439)). That's 1 in 13, or 7.5% of the time. Yes, the statistic is old, but I have no reason to believe it will have changed significantly since then. And 7.5% is hardly an "incredible statistical rarity".

Even though that would have opened them up to massive lawsuits?

No it wouldn't you can't sue active duty military-I was living at Fort Leonard Wood Mo-GLWACH is a military hospital-all medical staff are active duty.



But I'd like to think if I had that many negative encounters with something I'd actually educate myself on the reality.

I'd rather just avoid it as much as possible-personally-outside of fratching-the issue doesn't come up much in my life, and I'm perfectly ok with that, as my experiences have caused a Pavlovian effect-I get very upset-to the edge of tears usually. Negative reinforcement sucks.





Oh, dear. It seems that when you ban abortion, many bad things DO happen.


In a region where there is little sex education and social taboos keep unmarried women from seeking contraception

and I'm sure lack of contraception and sex education has little to do with the number of unplanned pregnancies. Also if I'm not mistaken many countries (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Female_genital_cutting#Prevalence) there routinely practice female circumcision-which leads to severe complications in childbirth on it's own.(also stats on that from WHO (http://www.who.int/mediacentre/factsheets/fs241/en/)-# An estimated 100 to 140 million girls and women worldwide are currently living with the consequences of FGM.
In Africa, about three million girls are at risk for FGM annually)

According to the WHO criteria, all types of FGC were found to pose an increased risk of death to the baby (15% for Type I, 32% for Type II, and 55% for Type III). Mothers with FGC Type III were also found to be 30% more at risk for cesarean sections and had a 70% increase in postpartum hemorrhage compared to women without FGC. Estimating from these results, and doing a rough population estimate of mothers in Africa with FGC, an additional 10 to 20 per thousand babies in Africa die during delivery as a result of the mothers having undergone genital cutting.

[TheRoo]

Here are some statistics on abortion on the CDC website:


http://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/preview/mmwrhtml/ss5212a1.htm
http://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/preview/mmwrhtml/ss5407a1.htm

It lists the number of legal abortions, the demographics of women getting legal abortions, and the death rate of legal abortions in the U.S.

[AFPheonix]

Well, back to the not having sex thing.....
The other thing to consider that is often neglected are abusive marriages. There are spouses who take advantage of their other half and can and do result in pregnancies that aren't wanted.

Abortion is a medical procedure. As such, it does carry a certain amount of risk. All invasive procedures do. However, the evidence is such that the risk taken is at an acceptable level for most people. If someone wishes to have it, it should be available and be as safe as possible. For that to happen it needs to stay legal.

[anriana]

and I'm sure lack of contraception and sex education has little to do with the number of unplanned pregnancies.

Seriously? I can't even come up with a response to that other than asking if you're really serious there. You really don't think that access to contraception and knowledge of how it works has much to do with unplanned pregnancies?

[Boozy]

I think BK was being sarcastic when she said that, or perhaps there was a typo. She's expressed support for Plan B, so I assume she's fine with birth control.

[Zyanya]

Considering we WERE not allowed to give our opinion to anyone-which I also stated in the previous thread.

CPCs exist to give their opinions. Every other supposes service they offer is also available at PP, including prenatal care and access to adoption information, and counseling to young mothers. Hell, I've yet to see a PP that didn't have a flier for an adoption agency and information about prenatal care hanging in the waiting room. CPCs exist solely to confuse women on the subject of abortion.

The branch of the CDC that is responsible for reporting injury and death statistics for abortion has not released any data since 1988-
if none of these are true show me these numbers-for the US-previously you provided stats for austrailia(which are not covered by the CDC)

http://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/preview/mmwrhtml/ss5109a1.htm

The date there? 1999. First link to pop up on google when you type in CDC and abortion. Please do at least a bit of cursory research before clinging to the falsehoods the CPCs gave you.

The reason CPCs and pro-lifers don't want to admit this data exists?

Because it shows that only .6 of every 100,000 women who get an abortion suffer mortality, as opposed to 12 in 100,000 women who go through childbirth. Kind of makes your entire stance on the issue of abortion being dangerous a little ridiculous, doesn't it?

yup all lies

Indeed. Seriously, a test sample of 158 women? Nowhere near enough for useful medical data. Especially when it leaves out pertinent information such as WHY the abortion was induced and WHEN, both of which are very important factors for determining future medical complications. If you have to have a late-term abortion due to ancephaly, of course the risks are higher, it's a far more invasive procedure (but absolutely necessary) with correspondingly higher stress put on the mother. And the difference cited was between women with no abortions versus women with TWO or more abortions. Oh, and to further muddy the waters, removal of an ectopic pregnancy is called an abortion, a woman who previously had an ectopic pregnancy would likely be at increased risk for another.

I do love your attempts to provide studies to back up your claim by misleading folks about the contents. Did it not occur to you by now that I follow your links and evaluate them?

No it wouldn't you can't sue active duty military-I was living at Fort Leonard Wood Mo-GLWACH is a military hospital-all medical staff are active duty.

http://answers.yahoo.com/question/index?qid=20080605005551AAznF3u&show=7
http://en.allexperts.com/q/Medical-Malpractice-925/wrong-matieral-used.htm

Yes, you can sue the military for medical malpractice. It's a bit trickier, but it can be done. Even military doctors are not allowed to lie to patients.

And I'm sure at some point you probably figured out that just because you are military you aren't prevented from seeing a civilian doctor. My mother was living on a military base when she was pregnant with me, and I was born in a civilian hospital.


and I'm sure lack of contraception and sex education has little to do with the number of unplanned pregnancies. Also if I'm not mistaken many countries (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Female_genital_cutting#Prevalence) there routinely practice female circumcision-which leads to severe complications in childbirth on it's own.(also stats on that from WHO (http://www.who.int/mediacentre/factsheets/fs241/en/)-# An estimated 100 to 140 million girls and women worldwide are currently living with the consequences of FGM.
In Africa, about three million girls are at risk for FGM annually)

According to the WHO criteria, all types of FGC were found to pose an increased risk of death to the baby (15% for Type I, 32% for Type II, and 55% for Type III). Mothers with FGC Type III were also found to be 30% more at risk for cesarean sections and had a 70% increase in postpartum hemorrhage compared to women without FGC. Estimating from these results, and doing a rough population estimate of mothers in Africa with FGC, an additional 10 to 20 per thousand babies in Africa die during delivery as a result of the mothers having undergone genital cutting.

Considering it's 'pro-lifers' that are constantly saying 'no, the pill is bad, it causes teh abortions', I suggest you take a look in the mirror.

And female genital mutilation, while abominable, is a strawman here. Banning abortion does not decrease abortion, it simply increases the risks of abortion.

[RecoveringKinkoid]

I wouldn't like to suspect people of lying without proof of it.

Rapscallion

I was thinking the exact thing. Accusing someone of being a liar on a public forum is extremely uncool. And yet it happens here with disturbing regularity. Someone posts something outside the realm of someone else's experience or opinion, and suddenly they are a liar. Gets old.

I like to read a good debate, and sometimes participate in one, and I like hearing both sides. However, I tend to ignore those that can't present their ideas without infusing them with personal attacks and rude implications about other posters.

But I suppose that's a subject for another fratch.

[Zyanya]

http://sci.rutgers.edu/forum/showthread.php?t=30616

Pearson's manual instructs CPC staff to use vague and evasive language so as not to clue women and girls in to the fact that the centers are anti-abortion. He advises centers to list themselves in the phone book "under the headings of abortion, pregnancy, birth control information, clinics, social services, welfare organizations, women's organizations and services, and health services" in order to mislead women. The manual also suggests that CPCs locate themselves in the same buildings as abortion clinics so that "the abortion chamber is paying for advertising to bring that girl to you." (JMJ Life Center, a local CPC, moved directly next door to Planned Parenthood Greater Orlando earlier this month.) Pearson's philosophy deems that CPC staffers should use whatever means necessary to prevent a woman from getting an abortion. In a 1994 speech, he declared: "Obviously, we're fighting Satan ... A killer, who in this case is the girl who wants to kill her baby, has no right to information that will help her [do that]."


http://www.prochoice.org/pubs_research/publications/downloads/public_policy/cpc_report.pdf

http://www.geocities.com/realitywithbite/chooselies.htm

[blas87]

If I remember correctly, you cannot just walk in and get an abortion anywhere. There is always a consultation, and every other option is always offered to a woman and the risks and everything involved are always laid out on the table. I had that pregnancy scare last fall (turns out I was just so stressed out that I was making myself physically ill, but it really made me realize I had been stupid and really needed to stick to my guns with forcing bf to wear condoms), and he wanted me to check out abortion clinics. The closest one I could find was in Minnesota and it went into great detail about how the entire procedure goes, before and after, etc. It's not like a tattoo parlor, you cannot just walk in and get an abortion.

Thankfully I wasn't pregnant and we didn't need to go that route, but I did learn a few things reading on that site.

Before people go rioting and picketing at abortion clinics, they should understand that people who work there are NOT executioners and murderers. They are doctors and nurses, and they do not push for abortions. They are there to help.

[BlaqueKatt]

Considering it's 'pro-lifers' that are constantly saying 'no, the pill is bad, it causes teh abortions', I suggest you take a look in the mirror.

and I suggest you go back one page

(and it's a reason I fully believe "Plan B" should be readily available*)


*no I don't beleive that hormonal birth control is completely safe, but I do feel it's the best option we have. And I would much rather have plan "b" available at you local supermarket, than see a baby aborted.

but yeah continue to lie about me and then call me a liar-welcome to my ignore list. Every thread where I've disagreed with you you've started on personal attacks-I'm tired of it-so go ahead dance around claim victory whatever-I don't care.

[Zyanya]

Before people go rioting and picketing at abortion clinics, they should understand that people who work there are NOT executioners and murderers. They are doctors and nurses, and they do not push for abortions. They are there to help.

Exactly. And if you decide you do not want an abortion, many also provide pre-natal care and ob/gyn services, as well as referrals to adoption agencies or women's shelters if necessary. When my sister was pregnant, the doctor she was initially consulting regarding getting an abortion ended up being the one to deliver my niece when my sister changed her mind.

The reason I am adamant about this topic is my grandmother's sister died from a self-induced abortion pre-Roe vs Wade. I was raised to stand up for myself as a woman. My uterus is not your property, and you do not have the right to enslave my body to your warped morality. I am more than a walking womb.

I actually have worked at a rape crisis center, and I've heard the stories of women who were essentially raped a second time by doctors or pharmacists when they tried to get Plan B or similar. Forced-birthers are no better than rapists.


Here they are, the women who have actually had abortions - http://www.imnotsorry.net/

They aren't monsters.
They aren't murderers.

They aren't poor bitter women with lost wombs suffering from post abortion syndrome.

They are normal women going on with their lives.

[tropicsgoddess]

Your solution is to make slaves out of people for at least 9 months out of their lives. You would make one person wholly subservient to another. Specifically, the mother gets to be subservient to the fetus. The mother no longer gets a say in what she will do, she must obey the needs of the fetus. She is now a slave to someone else.

If you want to compare slavery arguments, you might as well compare the rest of it.

The response of "Well, don't have sex" isn't exactly a very fair option. Women who get raped face the possibility of getting pregnant from that encounter.

What about a married couple? Suppose that couple wishes to remain childless. That couple should deprive themselves of the joy of making love, even if they were to take every precaution to prevent pregnancy? After all, accidents happen.

What if the prospective mother will find herself in dire straits because of it? I'll use my wife as an example: She was diagnosed with rheumatoid arthritis in her early twenties. The medications she has to take to control this are serious medications. At one point, she was on Vioxx. In order for her to carry a pregnancy to term, she would have to stop pretty well all pain controlling medications for the next 9 months. Sure, she could go as strong as something like Advil, but the arthritis continues to ravage her body for that entire time. She won't die from it, but she will suffer excruciating pain that will involve her hands being twisted in ways that hands were not meant to turn. She will wake up every morning in pain, and spend her days in pain, going to sleep in pain. The only difference will be the quantity of it.

Now, the people who are using the "don't have sex" argument are getting into this couple's bedroom and telling them that they can't do this. Who is making a choice for the others now?



Why doesn't a prospective mother have rights to force a man to donate his sperm?

Until such time as it actually can survive outside the womb, it's part of the woman's body. You might not want to call it that, but it is. It is no different than a kidney in that regard. Remove the organ, it dies. Same for the fetus.

As such, that choice has to belong to the woman, and the woman alone. Why doesn't the father get to choose to abort? Well, bluntly put, he made the choice to have unprotected sex (yes, it's possible for female on male rape to occur which will result in the female getting pregnant, but that's extremely difficult to do. We can pursue that topic further if you'd like). As such, he's already made a choice to accept the risk of her getting pregnant.

Finally, assume he thought she was using the pill: I firmly believe that, if he can prove that the pregnancy was planned without his knowledge or consent that he should be able to sever all parental rights and obligations, and require her to deal with the consequences.



Mostly, it is disturbing because some of these places can be highly irreputable. The one site seems like the medication is legit and safe, but only used appropriately- which we all know, not everyone will have the knowledge to use it safely or even use it as instructed.

Back-alley abortions are frightening. It is scary in and of itself that these women feel so hopeless that they turn to mutilation because they feel they have no other option. :(


You both have excellent arguments on how banning abortion doesn't make sense, but there's another argument I'm going to put in on that one. The cultural factor. There are some cultures that are very against pre-marital sex, but extremely against out-of-wedlock pregnancies. If a woman was unable to get an abortion for having an out-of-wedlock pregnancy, she could be ostracized for bringing shame to her family's name, but what's worse is that her life could be in danger as well. The relatives would kill her to keep the family from that dishonor. So for those that think banning abortions make sense, picture this: the many women that would die from back alley and home rigged abortions, going through the pregnancy while having health issues of their own,honor killings from an out-of-wedlock pregnancy. Also imagine all the women that suffer permanent damage to their reproductive organs from the back alley and home rigged abortions, and how many more unwanted and (for some) unloved children would be bought into this world.
I am pro-choice, but I believe that abortion should be a last resort with consultation if the plan B (morning after pill) fails.

[Lace Neil Singer]

Not to mention women who die from air embolism; that happens when they try to syringe soapy water up themselves and end up putting an air bubble up there instead. Plus as I mentioned before, infanticide and abandonment. A desperate woman who is forced to give birth to a child she doesn't want may well decide to smother the baby at birth, or dump it in a phone box.

I agree with Zyanya. My body is my own, and I refuse to be forced into pregnancy when I don't want children and plan to never become a mother. I spent years battling compulsive eating disorder, self harm, depression til I learned to love my body for what it was. I refuse to ruin it with stretchmarks, swags of skin, droopy breasts and fat rolls. I want to stay out all night drinking; go to concerts; ride motorbikes and have spontanious outings. I want to spend my spare cash on myself. I want have lie ins and me time. I refuse to give all that up, so I choose to not be a mother. Since I am doing all I can to avoid pregnancy, I feel I have every right to choose to have a parasite removed from my womb, should an accident happen. I would choose abortion as a last resort if contreception and the morning after pill don't work.

That is my right. Just as it is your right to keep a baby or give it up for adoption. It is WRONG to force a woman to have an abortion. It is WRONG to force a woman to birth an unwanted baby. Both are as WRONG as each other.

[Amethyst Hunter]

If I remember correctly, you cannot just walk in and get an abortion anywhere. There is always a consultation, and every other option is always offered to a woman and the risks and everything involved are always laid out on the table.

No. You can't. In fact, in some states, you are FORCED BY LAW to wait a mandated period (which can be anywhere from 24 hours to several days to weeks or even months, depending on the law) before you can actually proceed with the abortion. Some states also have laws which say that doctors must give examinations, ultrasounds, etc. and basically attempt to talk the woman out of it. You can thank all the anti-choicers for laws like these - laws which are designed to stall the woman as long as possible so that the time frame during which an abortion can be safely/legally performed expires. As someone else put it, it IS 'forced birth.'

Mandatory waiting periods aren't going to discourage women from getting abortions one bit. Anyone who's chosen to have an abortion has already thought things through and made up her mind solid, and nothing will change that. Anti-choicers just can't handle the fact that women are autonomous beings with the capability to think for themselves, and that's what really burns them: that they can't control women.

Before people go rioting and picketing at abortion clinics, they should understand that people who work there are NOT executioners and murderers. They are doctors and nurses, and they do not push for abortions. They are there to help.

This is why I firmly believe that any act of vandalism and violence against these places/people should be treated like the terrorist act that it is, and their perpetrators punished accordingly. Religion is NO excuse for terrorism.

[powerboy]

I believe that women and couples should give the child up for adoption - if they do not want the child for whatever reason. Like what was said earlier, for every abortion - there is 40 couples that could of had an adoption.

[Lace Neil Singer]

I refuse to go thru pregnancy and birth, thanks very much; do you not realise the ravages that a baby brings to a woman's body? Yes, if you want that child and are going to love it, you would accept that, but there is no way in hell that I'm going to put myself thru that just so some couple who want a PERFECT BABY can adopt.

Yes, I capitalised that for a reason. There are loads of older kids who need parents, and loads of autistic or Downs babies waiting for adoption, that these people refuse to adopt cuz they want perfect babies. That's why they go abroad, rather than adopt an older child or one with a disability or syndrome.

[the_std]

I believe that women and couples should give the child up for adoption - if they do not want the child for whatever reason. Like what was said earlier, for every abortion - there is 40 couples that could of had an adoption.

That's a nice sentiment, but childbirth can irrevocably alter a woman's body. It can put her in danger. It can do all sorts of nasty things. So, even if she doesn't keep the baby, she'll still have to put up with all the changes from actually delivering the child. What if she doesn't want that?

[AFPheonix]

What the_std said, and couples that adopt and can afford it aren't as common as one would like to think. Sorry, there's tons of little kids in orphanages and foster care that would love to have a mom and dad and don't.
Not to mention women and girls who WILL be abused if they come up pregnant and are found out.

[Amethyst Hunter]

I've said it before and I'll say it again: there is only *ONE* tried-and-true way to lower the abortion rate (and do note that I said "lower", not "eliminate" - it will never be eliminated entirely whether it's legal or illegal) and this is the only method that I approve of and would endorse:


- Provide age-appropriate correct and unbiased information throughout a child's development as the needs change and arise (i.e., kindergartners don't need to hear about condoms just yet, but they should be taught the basic differences between boys and girls), preferably before a crisis hits (like finding out your 14-year-old has been dating a 16-year-old)

- Teach self-respect (therefore enabling teens to resist peer pressure better and give them an outlet for their boredom/frustrations; this is why I heartily support mentorship and apprentice programs which can help teens discover future career interests and nurture their talents - I only wish that I had had something like this when I was a teenager)

- Provide ALL available contraceptive, abortion and adoption services (doing so makes it that much less likely that a woman will pick the abortion route; people tend to feel more secure when they know they have a wide array of options they can depend on) without judgment or pressure to choose a particular path

- Provide all necessary resources that parents will need to successfully raise a healthy and well-adjusted child (Also ties in with the above; many abortions are had by poor women who can't afford the costs of an extra mouth to feed even if they do want a, or another, child. As of this point in time, it takes approximately a quarter of a million dollars to raise an average child in the US from infancy to age 18, and that's not even counting the costs of college. Your poverty rate goes up, you're going to see more abortions. Fix the poverty, and the abortion rate goes down because more people can afford to properly care for however many children they have.)


The hardest truth for many people to accept is that abortion is always going to be around. It's been around ever since time began and humans figured the whole scheme out; the reason it became such a taboo in the 1800s-1900s was because the medical community at the time was losing out on patients who were going to trained midwives and such instead of doctors (and not just for abortions, for healthcare in general), so they made it illegal before realizing how many women were suffering and dying as a result of self-inflicted or botched abortions. The updated version of the book Our Bodies, Our Selves details a very dark period where women were winding up permanently damaged or dead because abortion was criminalized. Once abortion was legalized, these cases dropped dramatically, and, ironically, so did the total number of abortions being performed. You don't back someone into a corner if you don't want them to do a particular thing.

There are times when it IS necessary. Take ectopic pregnancy. It WILL kill you, no ifs ands or buts. A successful ectopic pregnancy makes the news because these types of deliveries are exceedingly rare; you could probably count on one hand the number of times they occur - the vast majority of women who wind up with one will not only lose the pregnancy but die themselves if they were to carry to term (because the pregnancy ruptures the internal organs and causes massive internal bleeding). This is why sterilization candidates are cautioned to use a backup - or better yet, multiple backups - method of birth control until they're 100% assured that the sterilization has taken successfully.

That's why I don't believe that abortion is such a huge sin (and if it is, why isn't it explicitly listed in the Top Ten Rules - and the "thou shalt not murder" one doesn't count. It has to be in there *by name*). I'm a lot less bothered by a discarded embryo than I am by a baby just born and tossed into a trashcan. If all the factors I listed above had been in place for the female who did such a thing, that kind of tragedy surely never would have occurred in the first place. To me, the only time abortion is truly wrong is if 1) a woman is being pressured into it when she's made it clear that she doesn't want to do it, or 2) someone's using it as a primary method of birth control when it was clearly never intended to be as such - and I can virtually guarantee that the ones doing this are far and few between.

The propaganda likes to trick people into believing that 8, 9-months pregnant women are walking into clinics everywhere and demanding abortions like candy. Not so. First, as I previously stated, getting an abortion is *never* that simple, and second, there is *no* legitimate doctor on earth who would do an abortion that late unless there was a serious medical risk (like the fetus having died in utero and the necrotic tissue needs to be removed lest infection sets in). And I really, really doubt that there is any woman on earth who would go through a pregnancy that long and suddenly decide that she didn't want to give birth. Most abortions take place within the first 12 weeks and the rest afterwards in the second trimester; only a very, very few take place late in the pregnancy - and those are almost always because something has gone seriously wrong and needs to be dealt with asap.

That's why I am and always will be pro-choice: I believe in giving people the freedom to choose as they will. If we want them to make better choices, we have to give them the help that they need in order to make such decisions. Band-aid fixes like bans never solve the problem, they just make it worse and expose the banners as hypocrites - because those who want to ban it also usually don't want to pony up for the long-term solutions. (And I could go into a whole 'nother rant about how most of said banners are also misogynistic creeps who want to see women brought low, but that's for another time.)

[anriana]

I believe that women and couples should give the child up for adoption - if they do not want the child for whatever reason. Like what was said earlier, for every abortion - there is 40 couples that could of had an adoption.

No one is entitled to a baby. No one is entitled to ANYTHING taken from the body of another person.

Do you think everyone should be an organ donor?

[iradney]

I am 27 years old, and have been sexually active for for 9 years.
I have not had any pregnancy scares, or any abortions. I am pro-choice, but I will not force someone to have an abortion simply because of my beliefs.

Why have I not fallen pregnant? My parents gave me the Sex Talk. Told me about BC, abstinence, foreplay, all the squicky details. I know what to do and what not to do.

Banning abortion doesn't make sense, especially in my country with it's high incidences of rape. And not just random person person raping you, I'm talking about your father, brother, uncle, granpa etc raping you. Do you really want to keep the baby and tell them that their Daddy and Grandaddy are one and the same?

Plus, the majority of the population in Africa is black and poor. Giving a baby up for adoption in this continent is basically condemming them to a lifetime in the orphanage, as:
a) A great big chunk of the population cannot support themselves and therefore cannot afford to adopt
b) People prefer to adopt babies that look like them
c) The people that can support themselves either don't want children, or have had their own.

The number of backstreet abortions would increase at a ridiculous rate. You could get people who have done First Aid courses claiming to know how to perform an abortion.

As for the pro-lifers, with all the stories I've heard about them bombing, harrassing and killing the people that work in the clinics - gee, hypocrite much?

Banning abortion doesn't solve the problem. It merely tucks it away in a hard to see corner. As mentioned previously, what of people with undiagnosed medical conditions, like schizophrenia, or a tendency towards depression?

I myself have a very, VERY bad temper. If I am sleep deprived and otherwise stressed, it is hard for me to control. I shudder to think what I could do to a small baby if I actually lost my temper properly. No thanks.