ABORTION

[Blindgreed1]

Anyone who has really strong opinions on abortion should glance downward. If you see a penis hanging off your body you don't have a vote. End of story. This is a country that deports children by the thousands because of an accident of geography at their birth, and subjects millions more to abject poverty, humiliation and utter hopelessness because of a paranoid fear their parent might not work hard enough to deserve the scraps we deign to gift them with. Until we actually care about the humans who have already been born, let's stop pretending to give a shit about the ones who don't live yet.

I disagree. I feel as though I should have had some say since my wife (now ex) was pregnant with my son, but again, that is a different discussion.

[HairOfTheDog]

I don't think it's a different discussion Gunnar; it's relevant.

I hear what Donovan is saying and I share his view when it comes to religious and political leaders (and strangers), primarily male, attempting to decide for women how women should think, feel, and act in regards to their bodies and reproduction. Fuck those dudes.

However, I think men need to be responsible when it comes to birth control and parenting. And, I also think that men should be involved in the decision to abort or not, if the pregnancy is the result of a relationship (as opposed to one-night-stand, rape, abuse/control...). Still, since the female is carrying the fetus, to what extent the male is engaged in the decision ultimately lies with the woman.

[Maggot]

More women are against abortion at least poll wise. I myself imagine its an even split.

“Polls consistently show … that women are more likely than men to support a reduction on the abortion limit. In the 2011 YouGov poll 28% of men supported a reduction, 46% of women did. In the 2012 YouGov poll 24% of men supported a reduction, 49% of women did. In the Angus Reid poll 35% of men supported a reduction in the limit, 59% of women did. In the ICM poll 45% of men supported a reduction to 20 weeks, 59% of women did.”

link

A 2012 Gallup poll found women (44%) were more likely than men (38%) to call themselves "pro-choice" and that men (53%) were more likely than women (46%) to call themselves "pro-life." But Gallup found that from 2001-2008, 48% of men and 49% of women self-identified as "pro-choice." Between 2009 and 2012, 43% of men and 45% of women identified as "pro-choice."

link

[Blindgreed1]

I don't think it's a different discussion Gunnar; it's relevant.

I hear what Donovan is saying and I share his view when it comes to religious and political leaders (and strangers), primarily male, attempting to decide for women how women should think, feel, and act in regards to their bodies and reproduction. Fuck those dudes.

However, I think men need to be responsible when it comes to birth control and parenting. And, I also think that men should be involved in the decision to abort or not, if the pregnancy is the result of a relationship (as opposed to one-night-stand, rape, abuse/control...). Still, since the female is carrying the fetus, to what extent the male is engaged in the decision ultimately lies with the woman.

Agreed on all points.

[username]

I found that chart regarding teen pregnancy rates troubling. There are a variety of factors that come in to play but certainly the whole "abstinence" movement was really stupid. I honestly think b/c should be free and widely accessible. I'm also PRO-EDUCATION.


Among countries with reliable evidence, the researchers found exceptionally low teen pregnancy, birth and abortion rates in Switzerland (8, 2 and 5 per 1,000 15–19-year-olds, respectively), where long-established sex education programs, free family planning services and low-cost emergency contraception are widely available, and sexually active teens are expected to use contraceptives. By contrast, the United States’ rates of teen pregnancy, birth and abortion (57, 34 and 15 per 1,000 15–19-year-olds, respectively) were among the highest. The authors note that U.S. teens face low societal acceptance of teen sexuality, inconsistent provision of sex education, and socioeconomic inequalities that underlie higher teen pregnancy rates among the most disadvantaged groups.
The analysis found that the proportion of teen pregnancies that end in abortion varies widely across the 21 countries, even though legal abortion is available on broad grounds in all of them. For example, nearly 70% of teen pregnancies end in abortion in Sweden, compared with just 17% in Slovakia and 26% in the United States. The authors note that while all of these countries have liberal abortion laws, differences in access to and attitudes about abortion may contribute to these varying outcomes.


https://www.guttmacher.org/media/nr/2015/01/23/


The article above refers frequently to the following study:

http://www.jahonline.org/article/S1054-1...5/abstract


This chart and the statement that follows (from the study) has me scratching my head. Interesting..."inversely correlated". They provide some reasons for that too...huh. Must process. Still.... free pills! Free condoms...come and get 'em! We'd do well to focus on bringing our teen pregnancy rates down.





Figure 1

Percentage of teen pregnancies ending in abortion is inversely correlated with teen pregnancy rate (ρ = −.53). BEL = Belgium; DEN = Denmark; ENG = England and Wales; EST = Estonia; FIN = Finland; FRA = France; HUN = Hungary; ICE = Iceland; ISR = Israel; NET = The Netherlands; NOR = Norway; NZ = New Zealand; POR = Portugal; SCO = Scotland; SIN = Singapore; SPA = Spain; SVK = Slovakia; SVN = Slovenia; SWE = Sweden; SWI = Switzerland; USA = United States.

[Maggot]

It's funny that in the 19^th-20^th century, feminists were the loudest voices against abortion. The thinking was if men could get abortion totally legal and state sanctioned they would be more apt to not care if their partners became pregnant.
But today that thinking is not an issue. I would have imagined that morality run amuck would have made this a non-issue by todays standards.

[Donovan]

Unfortunately stories like Gunnar's will occasionally happen, and there are always victims in cases where male rights fall short. But in the vast majority of paternity cases, a two dollar box of condoms would have solved that problem before it became one, and a baby you have no say in is one of those consequences. Wrap that shit up.

Nonetheless, my anger is mostly directed at those who have no fucking stake in the care and upkeep of the eventual child, especially male politicians who by odds will probably immediately vilify both mother and child once it is born because of welfare and "my tax dollars" bullshit.
The only male equivalent I could think of to force a human being to consent to such an invasion of personal rights both physically and emotionally would be sexual orientation. Imagine if some legislators decided that in the interest of morality and sanctity of marriage that all unmarried men must become ONLY homosexuals for a year. Ridiculous? Ludicrous? Absolutely. But in theory iit's exactly the same sort of indignity we are pressing on women, that we somehow have a say in what goes on inside their bodies.

Do I personally believe in abortion? I'd say iit's problematic and an emotional Rollercoaster at best. I'd say more but I just glanced down, and whaddayaknow...

[HairOfTheDog]

We are behind some other countries when it comes to sex education and birth control accessibility, user. I agree.

[username]

I hate some of the names around the issue:

Pro-life (what...I'm pro-death?).

Pro-abortion (noooooooooooooo, I'd rather see fewer unwanted pregnancies to begin with).

Pro-choice (yeah, yeah...I don't find that one offensive but in my case Pro-Some Choice would be more accurate).

Right to Lifers! (I wonder if any of those same people would support physician assisted suicide--then they could be Right to Lifers AND Right to Deathers. ).

Meh. Anti-abortion (if you oppose ALL abortions) is more descriptive.

[HairOfTheDog]

I'd say more but I just glanced down, and whaddayaknow...

You saw me underneath you?

Oh, you probably meant IRL.

In which case, I'll go with 'you have a penis!'?

[Blindgreed1]

Unfortunately stories like Gunnar's will occasionally happen, and there are always victims in cases where male rights fall short. But in the vast majority of paternity cases, a two dollar box of condoms would have solved that problem before it became one, and a baby you have no say in is one of those consequences. Wrap that shit up.

Nonetheless, my anger is mostly directed at those who have no fucking stake in the care and upkeep of the eventual child, especially male politicians who by odds will probably immediately vilify both mother and child once it is born because of welfare and "my tax dollars" bullshit.
The only male equivalent I could think of to force a human being to consent to such an invasion of personal rights both physically and emotionally would be sexual orientation. Imagine if some legislators decided that in the interest of morality and sanctity of marriage that all unmarried men must become ONLY homosexuals for a year. Ridiculous? Ludicrous? Absolutely. But in theory iit's exactly the same sort of indignity we are pressing on women, that we somehow have a say in what goes on inside their bodies.

Do I personally believe in abortion? I'd say iit's problematic and an emotional Rollercoaster at best. I'd say more but I just glanced down, and whaddayaknow...

Doesn't the Pope have something to do with this?

[HairOfTheDog]

Many states are de-funding PP as is their right because federal funding is not used for abortion. So my question to you is, do you think that all federal funding is never used for any abortion related material or procedures?

Sorry Maggot, I missed this question when I responded to the rest of your post.

Unlike the Fed, states aren't prohibited from funding abortions under the Hyde Amendment. I am not challenging the states' rights to to fund or defund abortion. I disagree with Federal and state politicians who defund PP's quality women's health services because PP also performs abortions.

I also disagree with state politicians who have used the anti-abortionist sting videos as justification to cut off existing abortion funding to PP. I support stem cell research and PP did not break any laws in contributing to life-saving medical research, so it rubs me wrong to see that being used as justification.

I don't believe that Planned Parenthood is using Federal health service funds to buy abortion-specific materials and procedures. PP is audited up the ying-yang and they have two distinct financial buckets; the "health services" one being much much larger. It would not make sense for them to risk that when they don't need to do so and they could lose everything for so little gain. I haven't seen that allegation being made. Instead, the anti-abortionists contend that Federal funding of health services allows PP to exist and therefore to continue providing the legal (non government-funded) abortions that they oppose.

On a state level, I don't know if PP is required to keep health and abortion funds separated in those 17 states that have chosen to fund abortion services. I imagine so, but I haven't checked.

So you would agree that the support or the non support of abortion is not a yes or no simple answer. I'm agreeable in that context. I just wish politicians would be able to take some kind of middle ground and because of voting citizens both parties cater to their party. It shouldn't be so cut and dry when dealing with a life.

Yes, I agree that for some people, it's not a "pro-choice" vs "pro-life" issue; that hasn't changed since I said so in our discussion a few pages upthread.

Many people support abortion up to a certain number of weeks and oppose it past that point. Others don't support it at all. And, still others others support abortion only in cases of rape, incest, risk to mother's life, risk to mother's health, and/or fetal abnormality.

Like just about every other controversial social/political issue (gun control, death penalty, immigration...), there are both absolutists and middle-grounders in the general public and within the professional political parties.

The GOP politicians are primarily anti-abortionists and use that stance to help define their platform. They oppose the existing law making abortion legal in this country.

Anyway, I have seen recently that several Democratic politicians outwardly support the pending "Pain Capable Unborn Children's Act". If that Act passes, abortion would be banned after 20 weeks instead of the current 24 week cut-off under Roe vs. Wade.

[Maggot]

I believe its a step in the right direction. I know its hard for a parent to be blunt with their children about sex but its a topic that has to be addressed in order for them to adjust into adulthood. I think the discussion is something that's lacking in many parent/child relationships. It doesn't happen overnight.

[Duchess]

I know its hard for a parent to be blunt with their children about sex but its a topic that has to be addressed in order for them to adjust into adulthood.

I can still recall the horror I felt when my Mom told me about the birds & the bees and when my Dad entered the conversation I want the earth to open and swallow me whole.

A girl once tried to blame a pregnancy on one of my brothers and after getting an attorney for him and an order for some kind of testing she strangely dropped her quest and moved on to someone else. It scared the shit out of my brother and years later I overheard him laughingly telling one of our other brothers that he didn't attempt to get laid for years after that.

[aussiefriend]

Well, these days thanks to our oversexed society, kids already know. It's horrible.

[Maggot]

aussie if you watched Mr. Mike in 3D you would get pregnant.

[HairOfTheDog]

So to put it into perspective, you'd be okay with all of this if they weren't discussing it as a business transaction (which it is) and remained solemn and maybe said grace and included a blessing for all aborted babies before they had their business lunch? I'm not aware of any profession that includes such practices currently. Should coroners also bless the dead and say a prayer before they perform the tasks they were educated and trained to perform? How about doctors in the ER? EMS responders?

As I've said many times, I'm okay with "all of this", period. It wasn't illegal, babies were not killed for their parts or tissue, and using the aborted tissue for stem cell research is a very good thing. I can't make it any clearer than that for you, Maggot.

While I sometimes also find it distasteful when nurses and doctors talk casually about pain or death in my presence, no - of course I don't expect them to do all of the silly things you suggested.

I understand that people in such businesses sometimes come across as jaded/clinical/detached -- due to frequency of exposure, and sometimes by necessity to remain efficient and objective in jobs of that nature.

I don't make false absurd claims that because I, as an outsider, find something distasteful that it is therefore "almost criminal". That's ignorant.

I understand that you, Maggot, choose to stick by your odd statement claiming that you don't oppose abortion on moral grounds until 8 weeks into the pregnancy. BUT, for whatever reason, you do oppose it after 8 weeks and you don't care to speak for yourself as to why 8 weeks is your cutoff when the fetus can't feel pain or survive outside the womb for at least 10 weeks thereafter.

Instead, you'd rather deflect and insinuate that people who don't oppose legal abortion and do oppose illegal poaching are somehow less moral and compassionate than you, all whilst predictably inserting a Nazi Germany reference into the discussion - this time with the added bonus of a 'darkie' twist! Morality, you say?

[Maggot]

Wow............

[HairOfTheDog]

See, being direct and truthful can be fun too Maggot. That's a fact.

[Maggot]

See, being direct and truthful can be fun too Maggot. That's a fact.

Here is some reading material the doctor will be right with you in a moment.

Cosmo