Nationwide Walk for Choice this Sat 2/26 Turns Worldwide

[pjorourke]

Originally Posted by Whirlaway

Studies show that the number of deaths resulting from pre Row V Wade abortions was quite low. But the pro-abortion rights groups would have you believe otherwise.

While I think abortion is pre-meditated murder (the operative factor being "choice") I am not interested in taking away a woman's right to control her body....but I am interested in making abortion a rare occurrence through education, offering alternatives (like adoption) and also, yes, community condemnation and moral outrage...I don't think the right to choose should be legislated away. But the pendulum (of abortion rights) needs to swing back to the center IMO.

But you also have to consider the effect on crime and those deaths: http://pricetheory.uchicago.edu/levi...alized2001.pdf

http://freakonomics.blogs.nytimes.com/tag/abortion/

[WTF]

Originally Posted by pjorourke

But you also have to consider the effect on crime and those deaths: http://pricetheory.uchicago.edu/levi...alized2001.pdf

http://freakonomics.blogs.nytimes.com/tag/abortion/

Great links PJ.

[Camille]

Originally Posted by Whirlaway

While I think abortion is pre-meditated murder (the operative factor being "choice")

Choice of what? I'm confused. Life or death or child or no child?
Are you saying that a woman who for example had an ectopic pregancy and aborted on discovery would not be murdering her child because it's not really a choice if her life is on the line? If so, does that mean that another woman who carefully (and correctly) used oral contraceptive yet it failed to work and subsequently aborted is mudering a child because it's not a matter of life and death? Or are you saying both are murder? Im confused.

Thank you in advance for clarifying

Camille

[Whirlaway]

Interesting link PJ; especialy the freakonomics....but the Woman behind the abortion rights movement was Margret Sanger (not Constance Cook), an absolute racist, who promoted eugenics, exclusionary immigration, although she did decry Nazism for gassing the defective progeny.....

Sanger is noted for saying..."apply a stern and rigid policy of sterilization and segregation to that grade of population whose progeny is already tainted or whose inheritance is such that objectionable traits may be transmitted to offspring..."

[Guest042611]

Originally Posted by Whirlaway

Studies show that the number of deaths resulting from pre Row V Wade abortions was quite low. But the pro-abortion rights groups would have you believe otherwise.

Again, I don't know if we can necessarily count on this being true, because I believe getting accurate data about people's engagement in illegal activity is probably not as easy as we'd think. Furthermore, why does the woman need to end up dead for us to acknowledge that the practice both happens (how regularly is of course debatable) and is potentially extremely dangerous? Even if very few women died during DIY abortions, I think "zero" would be even better than "very few."

Women also used to die much more often during childbirth. I wonder how Roe v. Wade might have reduced the number of those deaths by allowing people to terminate life-threatening pregnancies earlier.

[Camille]

The one thing that hasn't been mentioned on here is man's part in conception/upbringing. For all the POV being expressed by some men about how abortion is murder there has been little talk about how they would handle finding themselves in the situation of unplanned pregnancy.

Is it right to assume that these men (that also see escorts or who perhaps have casual sex) would take on the sole rights and responsibilities of bringing up a child that was conceived in such a situation should contraception fail? If so, then why haven't you put that point fowards in sunstantiating your "abortion is murder" claim? If not, then what's your solution? To abstain from sex full stop unless you are trying to conceive? Or have some intense discussion prior to having sex with anyone about what YOUR plan is if it all goes wrong and contraception fails. There's no point in having that chat after the fact.

It doesn't matter how responsible you are with contraception, the reality is that it fails at times and people are not always aware of that directly after the fact even with condoms. That's why most escorts use at least 2 forms of birth control. There are many health situations (hyper-tension/ectopic pregnancy) where the woman STILL makes the final decision. If you agree with her right to do that, then you are by default pro-choice, which is not, and never will be, the same as pro-abortion. If you don't agree and you think its murder regardless of the situation then you really shouldn't be taking the risk of having any kind of casual sex because 54% of women that have had abortions used contraception in the month they got pregnant. On the back of that women who are not married nor no-cohabiting account for 45% of abortions. (source:guttermacherorg)

For those concerned about it coming out of tax payers money:

"Congress has barred the use of federal Medicaid funds to pay for abortions, except when the woman’s life would be endangered by a full-term pregnancy or in cases of rape or incest.
Seventeen states use public funds to pay for abortions for some poor women, but only four do so voluntarily; the rest do so under a court order."

http://www.guttmacher.org/statecente.../spib_SFAM.pdf


C

[charlestudor2005]

Originally Posted by Camille

The one thing that hasn't been mentioned on here is man's part in conception/upbringing. For all the POV being expressed by some men about how abortion is murder there has been little talk about how they would handle finding themselves in the situation of unplanned pregnancy.

Is it right to assume that these men (that also see escorts or who perhaps have casual sex) would take on the sole rights and responsibilities of bringing up a child that was conceived in such a situation should contraception fail? If so, then why haven't you put that point fowards in sunstantiating your "abortion is murder" claim? If not, then what's your solution? To abstain from sex full stop unless you are trying to conceive? Or have some intense discussion prior to having sex with anyone about what YOUR plan is if it all goes wrong and contraception fails. There's no point in having that chat after the fact.

It doesn't matter how responsible you are with contraception, the reality is that it fails at times and people are not always aware of that directly after the fact even with condoms. That's why most escorts use at least 2 forms of birth control. There are many health situations (hyper-tension/ectopic pregnancy) where the woman STILL makes the final decision. If you agree with her right to do that, then you are by default pro-choice, which is not, and never will be, the same as pro-abortion. If you don't agree and you think its murder regardless of the situation then you really shouldn't be taking the risk of having any kind of casual sex because 54% of women that have had abortions used contraception in the month they got pregnant. On the back of that women who are not married nor no-cohabiting account for 45% of abortions. (source:guttermacherorg)

For those concerned about it coming out of tax payers money:

"Congress has barred the use of federal Medicaid funds to pay for abortions, except when the woman’s life would be endangered by a full-term pregnancy or in cases of rape or incest.
Seventeen states use public funds to pay for abortions for some poor women, but only four do so voluntarily; the rest do so under a court order."

http://www.guttmacher.org/statecente.../spib_SFAM.pdf


C

On an unqualified basis I agree with everything you said in this post.

I also agree with your point regarding the father's responsibility, and I won't even make some of the arguments others would make in this respect (i.e. if he knows about it).

The only thing I would add is that we (as a society) need to develop better systems for handling the children that result from these liaisons (to call them "unwanted" is really a misnomer). We should have well-oiled systems in place to rear a child when one or both parents prefer to opt out. But we don't. The problem is (and I'll take some heat from the conservative/libertarian wing of the Board): when it comes to rearing children, it really does take a village.

[Camille]

Charles:

I couldn't agree more. The one thing that stuns me is that the UK do not allow private adoptions. There are several people out there that have fallen pregnant who are torn between not wanting to have a child but not wishing to go to term to see the child put into a state system. The stats on these children getting out and actually doing well in life are very poor. Additionally, private adoptions can see the "new" parents getting involved at a very early stage and offering support to the biological mother as she navigates pregnancy. In the UK, there is no prior contact in the state system like this...the child has to be born before any coming together and unfortunately, that it too little too late. I am a big advocate of well regulated private adoptions (by regulated, I mean complying with the legal requirements). Private adoptions, if conducted appropriately are a godsend to both biological parent and child IMO. In that respect at least, the US is much more well oiled than the UK.

C xxx

[discreetgent]

Originally Posted by Camille

The one thing that hasn't been mentioned on here is man's part in conception/upbringing.
C

Agreed, but - assuming a pro-choice position - shouldn't the man have a say in whether or not the woman keeps the child?

[charlestudor2005]

Originally Posted by discreetgent

Agreed, but - assuming a pro-choice position - shouldn't the man have a say in whether or not the woman keeps the child?

Damn, dg...you really know how to throw fire on a gas puddle.

The only place I know where this sort of regulation exists is in the decision-making power of a pregnant minor. Some states require the minor's parents to be notified and sign off.

Some men have had their say in the past....they have driven the pregnant women to abortion clinics. Although I think that was more for personal and financial reasons than concern for the mother and baby.

[Camille]

DG:

If you are asking if he has the right to say, "Ok, you don't want the child and I do not/cannot be a single parent so let's talk about adoption" then yes I believe he does. That's what I was asking, if these anti-abortion men are willing to have the conversation pre-sex. Like I said, its pointless after the fact. If you are asking if he has the right to request she be a single parent, no, but that works both ways.

C

[Camille]

Originally Posted by charlestudor2005

The only place I know where this sort of regulation exists is in the decision-making power of a pregnant minor. Some states require the minor's parents to be notified and sign off.

That's the case for the most part in England too Charles because surgery on a person under the age of 16 generally needs parental consent. There are however rare exceptions:

A young woman under the age of 16 may also have an abortion without parental consent if her doctors determine that she meets the Fraser Guidelines:

• She understands the medical professional's advice.
• She can not be persuaded to inform her parents.
• She is competent to give consent to the treatment.
• It is in her best interest not to inform her parents.

At the other end of the spectrum, a doctor may refuse to refer a woman for an abortion if (s)he believes that abortion is wrong in all circumstances. According to the law, however, these doctors must make their views known in their clinic literature and they must make alternative health care arrangements for their patients who request it.

[WTF]

Originally Posted by discreetgent

Agreed, but - assuming a pro-choice position - shouldn't the man have a say in whether or not the woman keeps the child?

He has a say in stating his intentions. He has no say in the final decision. For instance, I stated in one instance that I would fight for primary care rights. All you can really do is support what is not an easy decision with honesty and compassion.

[pjorourke]

Originally Posted by Camille

That's what I was asking, if these anti-abortion men are willing to have the conversation pre-sex.

That would certainly take the wind out of his sail.

[Guest042611]

Originally Posted by Camille

The one thing that hasn't been mentioned on here is man's part in conception/upbringing. For all the POV being expressed by some men about how abortion is murder there has been little talk about how they would handle finding themselves in the situation of unplanned pregnancy.

Is it right to assume that these men (that also see escorts or who perhaps have casual sex) would take on the sole rights and responsibilities of bringing up a child that was conceived in such a situation should contraception fail? If so, then why haven't you put that point fowards in sunstantiating your "abortion is murder" claim? If not, then what's your solution? To abstain from sex full stop unless you are trying to conceive? Or have some intense discussion prior to having sex with anyone about what YOUR plan is if it all goes wrong and contraception fails. There's no point in having that chat after the fact.

It doesn't matter how responsible you are with contraception, the reality is that it fails at times and people are not always aware of that directly after the fact even with condoms. That's why most escorts use at least 2 forms of birth control. There are many health situations (hyper-tension/ectopic pregnancy) where the woman STILL makes the final decision. If you agree with her right to do that, then you are by default pro-choice, which is not, and never will be, the same as pro-abortion. If you don't agree and you think its murder regardless of the situation then you really shouldn't be taking the risk of having any kind of casual sex because 54% of women that have had abortions used contraception in the month they got pregnant. On the back of that women who are not married nor no-cohabiting account for 45% of abortions. (source:guttermacherorg)

For those concerned about it coming out of tax payers money:

"Congress has barred the use of federal Medicaid funds to pay for abortions, except when the woman’s life would be endangered by a full-term pregnancy or in cases of rape or incest.
Seventeen states use public funds to pay for abortions for some poor women, but only four do so voluntarily; the rest do so under a court order."

http://www.guttmacher.org/statecente.../spib_SFAM.pdf


C

Great post Carrie! I guess these points illustrate why I didn't find Lynette's initial assumption that we are all pro-choice here, well, presumptuous. I assume (presumptuous on my part?) that each and every one of us here has had sex at least once without the intention of procreation—if I'm wrong, get me out, like RIGHT NOW. And so I would be surprised if anyone engaging in this little corner of the world would want to limit the options for two people faced with an accidental pregnancy.