Women, in general, *aren't* using abortion as a form of birth control! Good grief, if people think something that antiquated there's no point in even having this discussion. That article I posted noted that there are several states with *no* abortion providers. 80 percent of US counties have no abortion clinics, while only 12% of ob-gyn students even learn how to perform the procedure. Moreover, as Jeff said, there are millions of people in this country without access to healthcare services, so how on earth would they a) travel to wherever the clinic is; b) brave all the psychos outside who might try to kill them; and c) pay for the abortion if they don't have insurance (or even if they do, since some insurance policies don't cover abortion *or* birth control)? To get a legal abortion in this country right *now*, you already have to be brave and desperate, and possibly rich. Sheeeeit, Mrs. JB noted upthread that *Planned Parenthood* has picketers outside it! Just to get a pill prescription! How ludicrous. MadMax, of *course* I choose the life of the mother over the foetus. As Mrs. JB says, the mother is a fully realised person. The foetus before three months (when *all* legal abortions apart from some of the 'medical necessity' ones take place) is, to me, a potential person which cannot live without the mother. To me this is a no-brainer. Shrug. Now, you can believe something else if you want. I'm not the one trying to make the government force all women to follow my personal morality on this issue. And adoption, although it could be improved, is not the answer. I'm an old-school feminist on this issue: women *have the right to refuse to carry a pregnancy to term*. These are *our bodies*, for crying out loud! (I can already hear the 'what choice does the foetus have?' chorus... you know, the foetus *doesn't* have a choice, however sad that is on many levels. Because it's a *foetus*. Let's get real here.) By the way, Jeff is right, giddyup. If women have to bear the brunt of the responsibility, as you argue, then men need to completely zip it on this issue. If men someday, in never-never-land, become equally responsible for the babies, *then* I might give their opinions some more credibility. As the great philosopher Kelly Osbourne so memorably said: 'my vagina, my business!'
<b>Jeff</b>: Teen pregnancy rates may be down but surely by sheer numbers they are up! Which is more important? Are you really NOT trying to change anybody's mind?!?!?!?!?!? Offering vasectomies and sterilization is equally good. I am more interested in protecting women from unwanted children because they do bear and deliver the child. Please don't insinuate that I am letting rutting males off the hook. I'm not. I'm trying to offer solution to those who will suffer the most from unwanted pregnancy-- the mother-to-be. I have stayed home through the first year with two of my four children and I have primary at-home care with a third, so I have owned up to my responsibilities and, by your definition, have a say-so! I'll have to go trans-sexual to get dimsie's permission to sound-off! I've never murdered or been murdered and still feel like I should have a say about that too. dimsie, we'll just have to agree to disagree. My idea is to offer incentive such as cash on the barrelhead for procedures like vasectomies/tubal ligations. If people are going to make short-sighted decisions, they may as well make them for the best interest of society at large. No unwanted chidlren. I'm not using the news for research only anecdote. Kids go unadopted for years in the sytem-- even kids who meet the desirable criteria that you are suggesting is preferred. How can one be so stupid as to take cues from Jenny Jones or Maury Povich guests; those are TRAGEDIES depicted not stories of inspiration. The majority of "complaining" about the mother is due to the fact that she is the one that ultimately elects to have the abortion. It is a reality check that is not intended to take males off the hook. If I were a young woman with half a brain I would be taking the advice to the heart! I think my arguments deserve more respect than to be characterized as "complaints" because my ultimate goal is to save lives of the unborn children. <b>dimsie</b> 1. What would you do with a dependent adult-- say someone on life support or comatose? 2. Women aren't using abotion as birth control. Really? How are they using it. I am not saying that they use abortion instead of The Pill. I am saying that when they get an abotion it is motivated by birth control rather than life-or-death health issues. Do the two of you REALLY think you are NOT trying to get people to follow YOUR morality on this issue????????????????????????? Only I am doing that. You have got to be kidding. Your morality is that it is okay to do whatever you want because, from my standpoint, that's not a human being yet and/or it's your body and no one else's.....
Actually giddyup, in this issue it's easy to see how Jeff, myself, or any other pro-choicer would not be trying to force their morality on you, but you are on them. It's not necessarily meant in a bad way, at least in my opinion. You think a fetus is a human life and aborting it is murder. Of course you're going to try and pursuade us that our position is wrong. All I try to do as a pro-choice person is to get you to respect my opinion about the matter...I'm not trying to change your opinion. I also understand why it's hard for you and other pro-lifers to do that, seeing how you think those who are getting abortions are murderers. However, can you explain to me how someone can think that abortion is murder, but say it's OK in cases of rape, incest, or "medical necessity"? That makes absolutely no sense to me. Do you really think murdering is bad in some cases?
dimsie You say that in general women aren't using abortion as a form of birth control. Over 90% of the abortions are due to unwanted pregnancies as opposed to rape, incest or risk to the mother. Why wouldn't you consider that a form of birth control?
Percentages are invariably important because it means that the numbers ON BOTH SIDES will likely increase. Simple math...if 100 women got pregnant as teen 20 years ago and now there are 10 times as many women, we have to assume that 1000 women are getting pregnant now. However, if you decrease that number by 17 percent, those are 170 women not getting pregnant - 70 more than the total number before. So, yes numbers are important but not just to one side or the other. Second, no I'm not trying to change your opinion. I am defending my own and speaking out on why I have problems with blanket assertions and misrepresentation of factual data. I want to know the realities, not the assumptions. I'm not, however, you cannot ignore the fact that, while it is true that women carry the children, there is a vast inequity between women and men when it comes the responsibility of childbirth. Some of that is phyical but a lot of it is social. I don't think you are ignoring it, but if you really want to avoid abortions, the best way to handle it is to create a system that demands responsibility of the mother, the father and the community. Just because a woman carries the physical burden does not mean she should be required to carry the entire social, financial and emotional burden. Believe it or not, this has been tried in the US and in other countries. The problem is that people do not want to submit to these procedures because many do not want to destroy their opportunity to have a child at some point in the future. I don't know about you, but at 16, my priorities were a tad different then they are now. Many women and men want the opportunity to right the wrongs they made as youngsters, including being able to have a family. Besides, the numbers of people who would fit the mold for this type of procedure - i.e. women who have MANY children - are incredibly small. The vast majority of women in educated countries do not have multiple abortions or even multiple pregnancies. I'm not disagreeing and, believe it or not, there are a lot of people who DO take cues from TV programs like that including those in a position of power to change things. There are a lot of dumb people out there. I haven't considered your arguments as such. I believe you have good arguments but I don't agree with all of them and I think that there are instances when you don't have all the facts. None of us do. The bottom line is that I do not believe that life begins at conception. I do not believe that we can prove it. You must accept a certain belief to agree that life does begin at conception and I don't accept those beliefs as my personal truth. You do and that's fine. I respect that. However, as long as we disagree on this point - truly the most important point in the argument of abortion rights - we aren't going to agree about the ends. In addition, I think that there are more effective ways to end the use of abortion as an alternative to childbirth anyway. We are a market driven economy. Give women and men alternatives that are more attractive and abortion will become a thing of the past. Besides, it isn't like this is something people generally want. Surgical procedures are not nearly as palatable as other, more simplistic and cheaper options. Make them readily available and you won't need abortion in the first place.
Women, in general, *aren't* using abortion as a form of birth control! Good grief, if people think something that antiquated there's no point in even having this discussion. What do you mean? The majority of abortions are from people who simply don't want a baby. They aren't primarily performed for medical or health reasons involving the mother. What else is this, besides birth control? MadMax, of *course* I choose the life of the mother over the foetus. As Mrs. JB says, the mother is a fully realised person. But in subsantial majority of abortions, it's not a choice between the life of a fetus or the mother. It's the choice of either mother & fetus or mother only. By the way, Jeff is right, giddyup. If women have to bear the brunt of the responsibility, as you argue, then men need to completely zip it on this issue. If men someday, in never-never-land, become equally responsible for the babies, *then* I might give their opinions some more credibility. On this same note, men should not be responsible for financially supporting children, either. Correct? Because, as you say, men are not involved at all.
Well, technically it's birth control, but it the everyday use of birth control, it's not. Pro-lifers act like people use abortions like people use condoms or the pill (ah, don't need to use protection, I can just have an abortion if I get pregnant)...not true in the extreme vast majority of cases. dimsie is just arguing that if a woman, who is a fully realized life in her opinion, wants an abortion, then she has that right over something that she doesn't even consider a life. That's not at all what she's saying. giddyup is arguing that woman bear the brunt of responsibility when it comes to pregnancies and sex. Well, if that's true, then why should men have any say in what a woman does with that pregnancy? He says nothing of a man's responsibility to the child after it is born, but I'm pretty sure he agrees that a man should provide financial help.
Isn't this akin to someting that Klansmen of another era used to say about our black citizens? My mom, who grew up in Mississippi, says she was taught as a young girl that black people had no souls. Her father fully expected black people to get off the sidewalk when he was on it! There has to be something more inclusive than just "our opinion" or "our morality" at work here. A man should be the father to any child he creates. I am focusing on the woman's role because men will want to rut and apparently women will want men to rut with them so let's do the best we can to prevent pregnancy be it with contraception or better yet tubal ligation. Ain't none of it for certain!
Well, technically it's birth control, but it the everyday use of birth control, it's not. Does is really matter what kind of birth control it is? It is birth control. It's not primarily used to save the mother. That's fine if people think that's OK (I certainly think it should be legal), but there's no point trying to sugarcoat what it is used for. dimsie is just arguing that if a woman, who is a fully realized life in her opinion, wants an abortion, then she has that right over something that she doesn't even consider a life. No, that's not true. She said she would pick the *life* of a mother over the fetus. That indicates that there's a choice between the life of the two -- saving the fetus OR saving the mother. I assume she's saying that the choice basically comes down to losing the fetus or the mother using a coathanger and costing her own life. What she ignores is that the woman has a *choice* in using the coathanger or not. That's not at all what she's saying. giddyup is arguing that woman bear the brunt of responsibility when it comes to pregnancies and sex. Well, if that's true, then why should men have any say in what a woman does with that pregnancy? He says nothing of a man's responsibility to the child after it is born, but I'm pretty sure he agrees that a man should provide financial help. So basically, women should have the complete control over whether to have a baby or not, but then can require the man to support said child for the next 20 years (suppose he didn't want the kid but she did). That seems like a workable setup. You can't have it both ways. Either the guys are or aren't responsible. In my opinion, kids are joint decisions & joint responsibilities all the way through the process. Both parents (should there be two parents) should have every right to be involved in every decision, just as they both have responsibilities to the child.
<b>Jeff</b>: It seems to me like you think I'm spreading dis-information. I have no doubt that your data is more up-to-date and accurate than mine but so what? We both conclude that we would like to reduce the amount of abortions. We are both for education. We are both for accountability. I am a bit more aggressive in what I would offer as incentive to reduce unwanted pregnancy. I don't really care if it hasn't worked elsewhere. We have a way of making things work in America because we have a way of making things work.... As you said, we are a market driven economy. You're not trying to change my opinion but you are just defending your own while I am trying to change your opinion even as I defend my own. Sorry just don't see it that way. I think we have a system that demands accountability... only problem is is that system is over-burdened and thus ineffective. No one is really promoting out-of-wedlock births are they? I know we can't prove life begins at conception. I just assume it does. I don't want to play god by defining it some other way and then snuffing that life out with my "approximate" definitiion of life. You take caution about what kind of foods you eat. You take caution about what you (or DaDakota) sprary on lawns. I think it is inconsistent to not be as prudent about something that is/could be a human life. What else could it be? I know that it will be NOTHING ELSE BUT A HUMAN LIFE if left alone.
That is totally true, however, what do you do when one parent decides NOT to be involved which is the case more often than not in unwanted pregnancies. One of the stats I didn't pull up earlier was that, of the teen mothers who carry their pregnancy to term, 84 percent of them become single parents with little or no support from the father of the child. I agree with you that men SHOULD bear the same level of responsibility, but, fact is, most simply do NOT when it comes to the category of expectant mom's most likely to have an abortion. giddyup: I'm not sure why it is a concern whether or not we feel the other is trying to change our minds. It isn't really germaine to the argument anyway. Let's just say we both have strong opinions on the subject and we both want them heard. To that end, I think we can all agree. I understand what you are saying. I do believe that animal life is sentient just like human life beyond a certain point. I do not eat meat because I choose not to kill a living, breathing animal. However, I do eat eggs becaue I do not believe that they represent a sentient being YET but simply a POTENTIAL living creature. I feel much the same way about conception in humans. As for what I spray on my lawn, that has little to do with this. I simply don't want the environment to be harmed through the use of pesticides. It has little to do with my value for sentient life except in how those pesticides effect the lives on this planet as a whole. Fortunately, I don't plan on having to make the choice myself. Part of me finds it kinda nuts to be arguing about something I'll very likely never have to face directly, but, that's just the nature of these debates anyway.
Major, you're being to literal. Yes, technically birth control means controlling whether or not you give birth. However, in our society, when someone refers to birth control, they're normally referring to condoms, the pill, etc. Having an abortion is not a form of birth control under that connotation, no matter what pro-lifers try to say. It's not a choice "between the life of the two". It's the rights of a mother, a living person, against that of a fetus, which, in her opinion is not living. Of course abortion is a choice, it's a choice made by a human, not an unliving mass of cells...and in dimsie's opinion, and mine, a living things choice is more valuable than that. 3. Again, she's arguing against giddyup's assertion that pregnancy is more the woman's responsibility, and if he thinks that's the case, then if the pregnancy is the responsibility of the woman, why should the man have any say in what she does in that? No one's argued yet that a man does not bear any responsibility after the birth of a child. However, if she actually believes what you're asserting she does, then I don't disagree. I think she believes that it's an equal responsibility throughout, but in this case it's ultimately the woman's choice. It's not that easy to say "well if it's her choice, then a guy shouldn't have to help raise it". That's utterly ridiculous.
I think you are the one being too literal. Over 90% of the abortions in the U.S. are because the woman (or couple) do not want the child for reasons such as, can't afford it, not ready for children, don't want more children, too old, too young, etc. What would you call it if not birth control? Convenience?
Yes, technically birth control means controlling whether or not you give birth. However, in our society, when someone refers to birth control, they're normally referring to condoms, the pill, etc. Having an abortion is not a form of birth control under that connotation, no matter what pro-lifers try to say. But the purpose is the same. You use the pill, condoms, etc for the purpose of not having a baby. But if you've already become pregnant, those are no longer options. Abortion is then the method of "birth control" for someone who already has become pregnant. Different means, same end goal. It's not a choice "between the life of the two". It's the rights of a mother, a living person, against that of a fetus, which, in her opinion is not living. Of course abortion is a choice, it's a choice made by a human, not an unliving mass of cells...and in dimsie's opinion, and mine, a living things choice is more valuable than that. This may be what you're arguing, but that's not what dimsie was saying ... if you following the quotes backward, this is where it started: <I>dimsie: in places where abortion is illegal, it often comes down to a choice between the life of a foetus and the life of a woman killing herself by using a coathanger. (I know who I prioritise higher - the mother. But hey, that's just me.) MadMax: But why do you necessarily value one life over another? You say you know who you'd choose...you'd value the life of the mother over the fetus everytime. dimsie: MadMax, of *course* I choose the life of the mother over the foetus.</I> As you see, this line of argument DOES go back to a life of the mother v. life of the fetus concept. What's being ignored is that the woman *chooses* the decision to use a coathanger. I understand that dimsie believes that this will happen no matter what, but I don't think that's the right justification for abortion's legality. No one's argued yet that a man does not bear any responsibility after the birth of a child. I know, and I'm curious why. If the man has no say in the pregnancy, why would they have responsibility afterwards? I think she believes that it's an equal responsibility throughout, but in this case it's ultimately the woman's choice. Here are her quotes: <I>If men someday, in never-never-land, become equally responsible for the babies, *then* I might give their opinions some more credibility. As the great philosopher Kelly Osbourne so memorably said: 'my vagina, my business!' </I> My question is, if it's completely the women's choice to have the baby because she has to be responsible for it, why is the father then still responsible for it? The argument is that the woman is responsible, so it's her choice. Then that means the father is not responsible. I'd argue the father IS responsible, as is the mother, and therefore the father should have some say. Ultimately, dimsie's line of reasoning leads to this question: If the mother can say "It's my responsibility, and I don't want it, so I will have an abortion" then why can't the father say "It's my responsibility (financially, you agree that he is responsible), and I don't want it, so you will have an abortion)".
<b>Jeff</b>: You wrote "giddyup: I recognize that we will never come to a consensus on abortion because we share opposing views. I'm really ok with that because I'm not interested in trying to change anyone." <b>giddyup</b>: Then you proceeded to critique my assertions which taken together seemed to be accusing me of seeking to persuade through distortion. I won't even attempt to argue the validity of your stats, but I don't think I am distorting anything either. I drew the analogy to your meatless diet and your chem-free lawn to detail a cautiousness and deliberateness in your life that I find strangely absent in your consideration of the beginning of life. Carry on. <b>RM95</b>: I don't think you are representing my position accurately. It is hard to express. Let me put it this way: If I were a 16 YO girl, I would worry a lot more about getting pregnant than I would, were I a 16 YO boy, worry about impregnating a girl. As a girl it is in some ways more my responsibility because it is my body which will house this new life and deliver it to the world. I think all I'm saying is that girls should feel more responsible (defensively responsible if you will) than do boy because of the different roles nature has assigned them. This is creepy. <b>Major</b> and I are both disagreeing with RM95!!!!!!!!! I've never been there.
That sort of thing can happen when the very essence of the ruling body in a country is plauged by hipocracy. I wonder how many of the pro-lifers are pro capital punishment. I think a lot more than one could imagine. ENLIGHTENMENT
An abortion involves the cessation of a 100% purely innocent life. Capital Punishment does not. Where the hypocrisy? You do know that with your ENLIGHTENMENT crack you have given the green light to terminating innocent pre-natal children? We do give them healthcare! We play music for their development. Many times they are even given names before being birthed BUT THEY'RE NOT PEOPLE
I agree with 99.9% of everything Jeff writes on this bbs, but it is a fact that life begins at conception. It's biology, creation. It maybe a parasitic relationship, entirely dependent on blood from the mother, but the cells are alive, an independent entity- a fetus, baby, a life, larger than a mosquito(another parasitic blood-sucker) or smaller than a full-term baby, but still it's life. When you're pregnant there is something alive inside you or, otherwise, there would be no need for an abortion. Abortion is birth control. A choice that CONTROLS whether you give birth to a baby or not. It's about as simple as you can get.
That shoud be a dependent entity. Like a mosquito, a tape-worm. How about this? If, while the small, blind, hairless little marsupial was crawling from its mother kangaroo's vagina into her nice pouch, was instead captured, removed and killed would you say that it's life had ceased. Do you know how old this kangaroo fetus is when it makes the journey, by itself, up it's mother's furry stomach and into her pouch? Take a guess, Jeff? Sorry to debate this further, but I believe it's fact rather than opinion.
Just once, I'd like to have an abortion debate that DOESN'T turn into a kangaroo vagina discussion. Is that too much to ask?
