The "morning after" pill being available on an OTC basis would be a MAJOR boon and would fill in the gap for people who really want to have sex, but don't make the time to acquire a condom, sponge, or other means of contraception.
The real point is that we don't have to continue to watch abortion rates stagnant. If all of us from both sides of this issue teamed up and focused on reducing the root cause of abortion, unintended pregnancies, we could have a real impact on abortion rates.
The mother of course. It is her uterus and she gets to choose what it is and is not used for. She is allowed to make this decision and I say she should do so after consultation with her family, her doctor, and her God.
*throws back some moonshine* You're connecting a lot of dots here, but your causal chain has some weak links. Where's your evidence? Specifically, please justify these claims: 1) Increased availability among kids to contraception significantly increases sexual activity in that group. If it's just a small increase, the benefits clearly outweigh the risks. 2) There exists a phenomenon, which you call the sexual revolution, that has significantly altered human sexual behavior such that its more risky than it was in the past. 3) Depression and eating disorders in girls is caused by a novel cultural pressure to be sexually active. This one I find particularly dubious, considering what we know about the strong genetic component to these mental illnesses and the fact that humans have always had to compete for sexual partners. Could you clarify what you are trying to say here? Did anybody claim that contraception has anything to do with industrialization? I'll leave the rest of your post to the others.
But, I am sure you would agree, that she is free to NOT consult with them as well, it is entirely her choice. DD
Of course, the point I was trying to make is that she is free to consult with the people and/or entities that are important to her. If she does not believe that abortion is a "sin," it is not for others to force their morality, their God, or their opinion on her.
As a parent I would like to know so I could stop it from happening in the future. What if there are complications? I would kill someone if they called and said my girl was in the ICU and I thought she was at school.
When your wife was pregnant with your children, did you say she was "with child"? When you discussed her pregnancy with friends/family, did you refer to the baby growing inside of her as a fetus or a baby? I'm guessing "baby".
Same question as for DD: When your wife was pregnant with your child(ren), did you say she was "with child"? When you discussed her pregnancy with friends/family, did you refer to the baby growing inside of her as a fetus or a baby? I'm guessing "baby".
What does that have to do with it? What we said or didn't say, is none of your business.......that is the entire point. You are leaping around all over the place......to try to make an ethical point.....and the bottom line is we don't agree on the ethical matter at heart. And you have no right to push your beliefs off on anyone else...it is flat out...none of your business. DD
Semantics, semantics, semantics. We said, "My wife is pregnant." We said, "The baby's name will be..." not "The baby's name is..." We said, "She is going to have a baby..." not "She has a baby inside of her." We said, "The fetus.." very frequently. Just for the fact that miscarriages happen, we could not view the fetus the same way as a baby. You're trying to win an argument that's unwinnable with pro-choice supporters. There's a reason why, worldwide, the definition of a human, whether it is a fetus or a baby, is 50%/50% and not 80%/20%, 90%/10%, etc. Keep repeating this to yourself, "An unborn fetus and a baby are not the same...they are not the same...they are not the same..." Of course you won't. You don't believe that. But the pro-choice supporters do. Or ask yourself this: if a woman finds out she is pregnant and wants to adopt, do they assign her to someone and have her live with that couple until the birth? Why not? They should, right? If the unborn fetus is the exact same thing as a born baby, shouldn't they require this?? If I want to adopt a baby, shouldn't I have the right to say, "Well, since that will be my baby, I consider it my baby now even though she will not give birth for potentially another 6 months. I demand that the mother live with us for the next 6 months." Am I stretching it? Semantics, semantics, semantics.
I am not leaping around. You wrote that until a baby is viable outside the mother's womb, you consider it a fetus. My guess is that when you saw that first ultrasound, you did not consider it a fetus, you cosidered it a baby. It is absolutely my right to express my beliefs. It is youir right to ignore me or tell me I'm wrong or tell me that I should not push my beliefs on anyone else or to try an push your beliefs on me.
And my wife and I had the choice to carry the fetus/baby to term or to abort it..... Yep, free country, but don't be surprised when people ignore you, because unless you are going to be responsible for the baby, once it is born.....you have zero say in the matter. DD
And this is where I see the disconnect. Unless one is going to be responsible for the baby that may be conceived regardless of the precautions that have been taken, one should not engage in the activity that may produce that baby.
