Aftermath of Abortion

I don't know how it is in Texas, but out here on the left coast, contraceptives are about as hard to get as deodorant. Both are available at grocery, drug, and convienence stores. There is no issue with the availability of contraceptives.

 

Well, if prescription medicine is so easily available in California... then you've got bigger problems. Abortion should be the least of your concerns.

In Texas, you need a Dr. prescription.

 

I would assume he is talking about condoms.

 

You need a Dr. prescription to buy a condom in Texas? That is pretty messed up. Or did you just forget that there are options available that do not require a prescription?

 

Exactly. As I told MadMax I was generalizing but its a generalization with substance. I don't deny that are many pro-lifers who are willing do all sorts of things to help women but at the same time so much of pro-life rhetoric ends up demonizing women. Even here in this thread so many posters continually bring up how women are having abortions callously out of conveneince, while that's also a generalization with some substance too I don't think its going to help convince women to not have an abortion.

Having know a few women who have had abortions I would say that understanding isn't telling them that they're killing their child to make their life easier but instead seeking to find out why they would want to make that choice and telling them that they're not not immoral to consider that choice and help them address the factors that may have led to that decision. In other words win them over rather than try to shame them.

 

I was about to say there's gotta be alot of smelly people in Texas if you need a prescription to buy deodorant.

If you really need a prescription to buy condoms in Texas I think I'm going to start a condom smuggling operation into Texas.

 

I would make a suggestion here that you contact Congressman Ron Paul of Texas. Google his website. Send him an email and he will be glad to give you some medical information on abortion.

He is a gynecologist and he delivered my 14 yr old son. He is also my congressman.

As a Dr. who has delivered 1000's of babies he told me some very interesting things about abortion.

He is very opposed to abortion and most of his reasons are medical. (He knows too well there is a living baby in the womb in various progress of living growth)

Two things have stuck with me-

Abortion muders a baby.

We are arguing whether that is right or wrong.

When a society is confused about whether murdering a baby is right or wrong a huge statement is being made about the character and judgment and future of that people.

The innocent party is the baby.

The mother may well be victimized. The mother may well endure hardship. But no society will last much longer (at least morally) after it can allow the murder of innocent children.

We are the victims of Jedi Mind tricks- we are removing tissue, fetus, etc etc.

No we are murdering little babies.

When we understand that babies are being killed.
Mothers shouldn't be victimized by illegal abortions.
Children shouldn't be pregnant.

Once we can get back and hold to these basic morals (whether they are secular or religious really doesn't matter to the baby and the mother) then we can examine our solutions properly.

To debate that we must murder babies to save mother's pain and suffering. To say that current policy is solving the problem. To look over at Europe and decide somehow that a slightly smaller % is a good answer. It's all insanity.

This is much more than a Republican or Democrat issue, it is more than a religion vs. secular issue.

This debate is about babies being killed in the womb. Will we justify it for selfish motives and profits? Childbirth is painful. Unwanted pregnancies are very difficult. Teen pregnancy a growing problem.

So what do we do? We punish the baby.

When the innocent one is killed instead of protected the fundemental problem goes deeper than political issues.

The real debate hear goes much deeper.

If abortion is just population control, so is any other kind of murder. War is population control. Lynching is population control.

If abortion is a procedure that makes women happier or prevents a great big inconvenience then thats who we have become.

Blood is on our hands. If you are for abortion none of my rant probably means anything.

If you find is wrong to kill a baby. Do something. I don't know at least support those who are trying to save the lives of babies.

For those who find it a cold medical procedure if you haven't witnessed one you need to. I have seen it on film several times.
I wanted to throw up each time.

I really don't want to believe we are arguing about the killing of innocent babies.

 

To an extent, it is due to the date. When the fetus becomes viable, when it could live outside the womb, in my eyes it gains a "right" to live. While the mother's womb is the only thing keeping it alive, IMO it has no rights and is subject to the decision of the mother.

If a woman decides to give up her child (and I am defining it that way because in this hypothetical, it meets the criteria of being able to survive outside the mother's womb), she would also IMO give up her right to choose what happens to it. At that point, the government would be justified in mandating that the fetus be harvested rather than destroyed.

In the real world, the government has no business mandating that the woman bear a child that she does not want to bear.

 

The entire pro-life movement is steeped in religious zeal. That may not be the case in your instance, but to deny that statement is to turn your back on the facts.

As far as I am concerned, a woman's "lifestyle" is a HUGE part of her life. If she does not share your opinion of when life begins, or even if she does but decides that being childless is preferable at that point in her life, she has every right to make the decision to have any medical procedure she wants and the government's role is to see that such procedures are carried out in regulated facilities by licensed medical personnel.

It is between the woman, her doctor, and God. You have no right to infringe on that decision whether you support banning abortion or not. IMO, banning abortion except where "medically necessary" qualifies as banning abortion just as the way we treat cocaine is a ban (cocaine is used by dentists and in other medical facilities as a topical anasthetic).

Your opinion is that mine takes lives. You could be doing something that has actual impact on abortion rates in favor of being an activist pushing for the panacea of legislating abortion away. What you are attempting to have done will make the problem worse, not better, as we should have learned in the years before Roe v. Wade. Unfortunately, many in this country have a huge problem with learning from history, preferring to drag this country backwards to re-learn lessons we should already be done with.

If everyone who wanted it had ready access to contraception, combined with education about how to properly use said contraception, pregnancy rates would drop. The biggest drop would be unwanted pregnancies which are the most often aborted. If you cannot see that said drop would lower overall abortion rates, then you are really not thinking logically.

 

It is with many of the people who find themselves with unwanted pregnancies. The pure cost of said contraception is enough to drive away the poor folks and minors have limited access in most places. Contraceptives need to be more available and cheaper if you want to make a large dent in unwanted pregnancy rates. Having the "morning after" pill available OTC or behind a pharmacist's desk (obtainable w/o a $50 doctor's visit) would be an even bigger boost in reducing said rates.

 

This is where the breakdown is. You are assuming that the fetus is a "life." That is an opinion and one not shared by all of us.

 

So you tell a kid he absolutely under no circumstances should drink. You teach him respect for authority and provide a solid moral foundation for him, etc. You know as well as I do, some of those kids are still going to drink. When those kids do that, would you prefer that they had that number for the designated driver or that they drove drunk?

Promote abstinence all you can. It's the best (and only foolproof) method of protection against disease and unwanted pregnancies. But if you're serious about reducing (or eliminating altogether) abortions, we have to reduce unwanted pregnancies. Condoms are not foolproof but they work a hell of a lot more than they don't work. If you want to reduce unwanted pregnancies in kids (and adults) who do not observe abstinence (and there are many and always will be), condoms are the single, indisputable, number one way to do that.

 

It seems that these snowball threads never address what Row Vs. Wade really is. I'm not a legal expert, but didn't the Justices outline when it was acceptable to have an abortion and when it was illegal?

 

That's true, andy. But your assumption is where the breakdown of this debate lies. It's where the breakdown of this debate always lies.

All this talk of there being unwanted children in orphanages et cetera is a moot point to abortion opponents. They do believe it is murder and neither you nor anyone else will change their minds. Understand that. I'll try and help.

Would you be okay with aborting a one year old child? What about a one hour old child? Would you support abortion an hour before a baby is born? A week? A month? If you answer no to any of those questions, your definition of when life begins is arbitrary.

We will never arrive at a common definition of when life begins. As such, "pro lifers" (quotes because I hate that term as much as I hate "pro choice") are absolutely justified in erring on the side of caution. After all, it is, to them, a matter of life or death of a small, innocent, helpless child. And, as such, abortion is murder to them. If supporters of abortion rights can't or won't get that, we will never get any closer to an understanding on this divisive issue -- an issue that is more important to some people than any other.

As a very easy first step to trying to understand each other, as I have said before, I think we should do away with those horrible terms. Everyone is "pro life." Everyone is "pro choice." Calling yourself one or the other disrespects and demeans people from the other side unnecessarily and contributes to the incredible inability we have to hear each other on this thing. Furthermore, no matter how strongly one side feels about a woman's right to make intimate decisions about her own body or how strongly the other side feels about protecting the lives of unborn children, we need to acknowledge that there is no absolute right answer here. And we need to stop talking to each other like there is.

Next, as I said above, there is no better way to reduce or eliminate abortion than to reduce unwanted pregnancies. And that really is what we all want -- nobody likes having an abortion. Some women have abortions as a matter of convenience -- that's undeniable. It is also undeniable that every single one of them, given a choice, would prefer not to be in that situation -- even if it is a situation of their own making. So we need to reduce unwanted pregnancies. And in order to begin doing that, we need to all agree to support universal sex education for all children as soon as they are capable of producing an unwanted pregnancy. And we also need to provide easy access to condoms for them. Many people will find those things distasteful. If those people are serious about reducing what they consider to be murder, they need to value that cause over their distaste.

And after that, I don't rightly know what can be done. There will still be unwanted pregnancies, even though I believe they can be reduced. And there will still be abortions, even if the strictest possible laws are enacted. My position is that women who continue to choose abortion should have a way of having the process performed by a doctor rather than by a coat hanger. Some people will deeply, deeply disagree with that. I understand that and I respect it. But there are places where we can agree. I say let's start with those and see if understanding each other just a little on this won't get us a little closer to a palatable solution.

 

I didn't know condoms were classified as medicine[b/], smarty. He said contraceptives are easily available...not specifically condoms (which is only a subset). So I translated that to the pill form...not the latex form.

 

Fine, you are entitled to your opinion.

And if you beleive that, you should focus your attention on calling attention of teen pregnacies to the public, improving Sex Education, after school kid programs and things of that nature to prevent the unwanted pregnancies is the first place. Or you could even lobby for better adoption programs. Lots of option but I don't see that happening from the anti-abortion groups.

Preventing pregnancies prevents abortions.

 

I think that I am, due to my ability to observe and analyze facts. I am not making the claim that your opinion is die to religion, I appreciate that you came by that opinion before you "got religion," but that does not change the fact that it is an opinion and one not shared by everybody.

Again, your opinion and one not shared by everybody.

Yes, you have as much right to infringe as I do: absolutely none whatsoever. Your beliefs do not give you the right to interfere with other people's personal decisions. You are welcome to get all righteous if you like, but believing you are "sav[ing] an innocent life" still gives you absolutely no right to infringe on others' personal, private decisions.

Banning abortion "except when medically necessary" is a ban.

Who is talking about "stigma?" The lesson that apparently you have not learned is that no matter the consequence, women who want abortions will find a way to have them, prohibition or no. It is even easier now than in the '70s because of RDU-486. The only role of the government is to regulate an accepted medical procedure to assure that all such procedures happen in a regulated facility and are performed by licensed medical personnel.

Not very "wacky" at all if you have even a limited grasp of facts and available evidence. When we prohibited alcohol, rates of use went up, not down. When we prohibited drugs (actually, when we took a "war on drugs" approach and really cracked down), rates of use dramatically increased, particularly among young people.

If abortion were outlawed, RDU-486 would become highly available to anyone, minors included, and I believe we would not see any dramatic reduction in abortion rates. Prohibiting behavior between consenting adults does nothing but make that behavior lucrative, drive it underground, and exacerbate all harms involved with that behavior.

And they are expensive, negating the access that people of lesser means have, and they also have limited access for minors, negating the access of another group of people at high risk of unwanted pregnancy. They should be more available and less expensive.

You cannot kill something that is not "alive" and since we cannot agree on where "life" begins, you do not have the right to define it for other people.

 

Why don't you help people not make the mistake to begin with?

Outlawing abortion = hugely contraversial.

Educating people about unwanted pregancies = not contraversial.

Outlawing liposuction doesn't cure obeistiy. Educating the public about proper diet and exercise will ultimately be more effective. Oh, and stop overpromoting fastfood diets (ie. sex on TV).

 

Obviously I don't know how to do the quote deal and give credit to the poster. I would like to learn how.

Abortion is murder. Again if you could talk to Congressman Ron Paul, if you email him he will respond personally to you.http://www.house.gov/paul/

He is a gynecologist who has spent his life delivering babies. He is a man of high integrity. He even has articles on abortion on his website.

Specializing in gynecology it has been his life's work to protect the life of the unborn baby and the life and health of the mother.

As a doctor who is sincerely dedicated to the health and life of mother and baby he is well aquainted with the emotional and moral battles to ensure the baby develops and is alive and healthy at birth. The baby is viewed in the highest value, a human life, the gynecologist the specialist who can best ensure that the life conceived is protected.

Congressman Paul knows full well the twisting and darkness that must take place for a gynecologist to kill the unborn baby. At least that has been my understanding from him.

You see you and I are not gynecologists. Dr. Paul is one and he can tell you how he was once trained to give life and protect life and he know is in a society that has a new and dark mindset. One that tries to change his thinking from one of 'there is a living human baby in this womb' to one of this is 'meaningless tissue; without any value or identity or rights.'

There are many gynecologists who still today are horrified by this darkening of the medical profession. Some are religious, some are not. Some are older and remember their oaths to serve, protect and sacrifice for life.

Congressman Paul helped me understand from a medical side that abortion is murder. Everyone has an opinion.

People have murdered because God told them to do it. I trust few share their opinion.

One man's opinion is that blacks should be killed (it has happened here in east Texas). I trust few share that opinion.

Yes we all have our opinions about whether babies should be killed in the mother's womb.

Did you know that the most dangerous place for a human is not on the streets of Bagdad, but in the womb of a mother.

More innocent people are brutally killed in a mother's womb than anywhere else on earth.

I find it very disturbing and dark that people hold opinions that this is a good thing for society.

Take 10 steps back from all the opinions, politics, religious zeal, pro-lifes, pro-choice, pickets, legislation etc.

Step back a moment and see the bigger picture.
All nature including humankind is set in the defense of the unborn. The survival of the species rests in the protection of the young and the birth process.

Only humans get so dark as to hold the opinion that killing a baby is good.

If every mother and every father held the firm opinion that killing an unborn baby was at times needful and always good when agreement to do so is reached then we would have the same basic root attitude of those who devalue life by their own prejudices and pleasures.

You could solve poverty if you kill the poor.
You could solve any social ill by killing the perpetrators.

If what is an inconvenience or an unwelcomed problem can be best solved by killing we are most barbaric. Especially innocent parties.

I am not a supporter of anti-abortion groups- many may be good, but I see it often politicalized and addressed on a very surface level.

Just make abortion illegal. To me that is not the best answer. I would prefer it to be illegal, but just thinking that is all it takes will not solve the basic problems.

First people must understand it is wrong to kill babies in the womb and it is wrong to brutalize women with illegal abortions for profit.

Both of these answers are bad.

I do give money to orphanages, I counsel teenagers, and I support adoption efforts. I also support parenting groups, but most of all I try to make a difference where I live with the people in our community. Involvement!

What actions are you taking to get down to the root issues and find good solutions?

Are you doing your part for society by waxing eloquent on a message board. Have you observed an abortion? Have you talked with mothers who are excited about their pregnancy and asked them how they feel about the baby? Have you talked to kids who want abortions and asked them why?

Have you done anything other than defend a political position on a message board?