apodino wrote:

The issue with Abortion is many people on both the left and the right believe, as I do, that because Abortion takes the life of an unborn child, it always results in the death of a human being and that Unborn child should have the right to life. Many would argue its not a person until birth. I disagree with that. If someone came up with a way to terminate a pregnancy that did not result in the death of the unborn child, I would be all for it. We aren't there yet unfortunately, and until then, there will be no end to this debate.

It's not a child it's either an embryo or a fetus.

And it's not just unborn it's not viable unless there is a host body, as some would say.

Aesma wrote:

apodino wrote:

The issue with Abortion is many people on both the left and the right believe, as I do, that because Abortion takes the life of an unborn child, it always results in the death of a human being and that Unborn child should have the right to life. Many would argue its not a person until birth. I disagree with that. If someone came up with a way to terminate a pregnancy that did not result in the death of the unborn child, I would be all for it. We aren't there yet unfortunately, and until then, there will be no end to this debate.

It's not a child it's either an embryo or a fetus.

And it's not just unborn it's not viable unless there is a host body, as some would say.

Yes, but if left alone, as they say "let nature take its course", it is very likely to develop into a a fetus then a child. It takes an active action to end the process (not alwys, we know a large chunk are miscarriages). It is that "active" element that people take issue with.

I am not one of them, but I get eh argument. I get the debate and the reason for it. But I am not the one it directly affects and so I do not feel my voice will be the correct one to address it.

Tugg

The countries with the easiest access to abortion have the lowest abortion rates. (and good sex education and access to contraception)

Just sayin'.....

Kent350787 wrote:

The countries with the easiest access to abortion have the lowest abortion rates. (and good sex education and access to contraception)

Just sayin'.....

The same people who push laws like Texas' are almost always adamantly against improving access to contraception (or even things like tampons!) and have to be dragged kicking and screaming into allowing even the most cursory sex education. It's not actually about reducing abortions. It's about policing women's sexuality. When Rush Limbaugh called Sandra Fluke a slut, he was just saying the quiet part loud.

If someone can fill me in here, and I am truly curious as I have never gotten a clear answer. Is the reason republicans hate women's rights so much because it is like their duty, on behalf of j.christ, to stop what they consider immoral? Is it sort of how they often find others using drugs or acting sexually to be offensive, even if it has nothing to do with them? Is there something in the bible that tells them to do this or think this way?

"Governor Abbott... Governor Abbott... I just want to get this clear. What you are saying it that you DO support the right of a woman to abort her pregnancy. That the important thing for people to understand about the law is that the woman's right to abort her pregnancy is still in place and available. As you said sir "it provides at least six weeks for a person to be able to get an abortion.”
Is that correct sir? You do support the woman's right to terminate? "

Tugg

Guess what? Governor Abbott is going to eliminate rape!

Texas Gov. Greg Abbott defends abortion law, says state will 'eliminate rape'

Source: USA Today

phatfarmlines wrote:

Guess what? Governor Abbott is going to eliminate rape!

Texas Gov. Greg Abbott defends abortion law, says state will 'eliminate rape'

Source: USA Today

I’m guessing he’s from the clan of morons who believe you can only be raped by someone you don’t know.

Newark727 wrote:

Kent350787 wrote:

The countries with the easiest access to abortion have the lowest abortion rates. (and good sex education and access to contraception)

Just sayin'.....

The same people who push laws like Texas' are almost always adamantly against improving access to contraception (or even things like tampons!) and have to be dragged kicking and screaming into allowing even the most cursory sex education. It's not actually about reducing abortions. It's about policing women's sexuality. When Rush Limbaugh called Sandra Fluke a slut, he was just saying the quiet part loud.

Yeah, I thought I was implying that, forgetting that I'm a non-American posting in a US focussed thread.

Then again, I think I was more explicit upthread about this clearly being primarily about male control over womens' bodies.

SL1200MK2 wrote:

phatfarmlines wrote:

Guess what? Governor Abbott is going to eliminate rape!

Texas Gov. Greg Abbott defends abortion law, says state will 'eliminate rape'

Source: USA Today

I’m guessing he’s from the clan of morons who believe you can only be raped by someone you don’t know.

Or that there’s a finite number of rapists.

Or that the finite number of rapists don’t include those who have rich daddies to get them off the hook a la Brock Turner.

apodino wrote:

The issue with Abortion is many people on both the left and the right believe, as I do, that because Abortion takes the life of an unborn child, it always results in the death of a human being and that Unborn child should have the right to life. Many would argue its not a person until birth. I disagree with that.

What’s your criteria for becoming a human being? Conception? Implantation?

There’s an accepted position that a fetus isn’t viable until about 24 weeks. Up until that point it is a part of the mother, and the mother has 100% control over parts of her body.

Here’s what I don’t get about anti-choice types. There’s about a million abortions per year in the US, about 40 million worldwide. I hear anti-choice types refer to the fetus as a “person” and abortions as a “genocide”. If an aborted fetus is truly a person in their eyes then the rate of death in this “genocide” is far higher than the Holocaust, the Rwandan genocide, the Cambodian genocide etc. Huge wars have been fought to stop genocides, but all these anti-choice types want to do is slowly pass some legislation in some US states, slowly wait for judges on court benches to change etc. If they truly believed fetus were people wouldn’t they be compelled to take far more drastic measures?

This is why I believe the anti-choice types don’t actually think a fetus is a person (also why they aren’t considering adopting any unwanted children). They just want to use a right wing political wedge issue for votes. It’s hypocritical on a massive scale.

sierrakilo44 wrote:

apodino wrote:

The issue with Abortion is many people on both the left and the right believe, as I do, that because Abortion takes the life of an unborn child, it always results in the death of a human being and that Unborn child should have the right to life. Many would argue its not a person until birth. I disagree with that.

What’s your criteria for becoming a human being? Conception? Implantation?

There’s an accepted position that a fetus isn’t viable until about 24 weeks. Up until that point it is a part of the mother, and the mother has 100% control over parts of her body.

Here’s what I don’t get about anti-choice types. There’s about a million abortions per year in the US, about 40 million worldwide. I hear anti-choice types refer to the fetus as a “person” and abortions as a “genocide”. If an aborted fetus is truly a person in their eyes then the rate of death in this “genocide” is far higher than the Holocaust, the Rwandan genocide, the Cambodian genocide etc. Huge wars have been fought to stop genocides, but all these anti-choice types want to do is slowly pass some legislation in some US states, slowly wait for judges on court benches to change etc. If they truly believed fetus were people wouldn’t they be compelled to take far more drastic measures?

This is why I believe the anti-choice types don’t actually think a fetus is a person (also why they aren’t considering adopting any unwanted children). They just want to use a right wing political wedge issue for votes. It’s hypocritical on a massive scale.

The more that I consider this, the more I’m starting to believe it isn’t even religion. I think it’s simply the fact that the left support it.

They’re pathetic and reactionary at best.

Imagine the day some billionaire starts "Choice Air", giving free tickets on the airline to any woman seeking an abortion, from a restrictive state to a blue state, return (or not return, if she wants to take the opportunity to also leave the backwards place...).

Are there parallels to this law anywhere else in the world?

Kent350787 wrote:

The countries with the easiest access to abortion have the lowest abortion rates. (and good sex education and access to contraception)

Just sayin'.....

Do you have anything confirming this?

Willjet wrote:

Are there parallels to this law anywhere else in the world?

Yeah Texas is now considered to be on par with places like Saudi Arabia, Algeria, Nigeria, Egypt and Pakistan:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abortion_ ... n_Laws.svg

Countries which more liberal than Texas and allow greater reproductive rights for women include Iraq, Iran, Sudan, China, Indonesia, Tunisia, and even North Korea.........

I think it is disingenuous to say the right wants to control a women's right to control their body. The vast majority (not the fringe minority) consider the fetus to be a life, so its not about the women's right to choose, rather protecting an unborn life. You must look at the actually views and arguments of both sides to try to reach a compromise. Saying the right wants to just control women is doing nothing constructive and by all accounts not true.

Personally, I don't know what the right answer is. I have heard people say that women should be able to just have an abortion because it would be a burden to her and society. I have trouble with this. If someone becomes mentally ill and becomes a "burden" on society, should we kill them? That is not that much different than the burden to society argument.

It takes two to tango, and there are repercussions for those actions, such as pregnancy. I am talking about 98.5% of the cases that are not rape or incest (according to the link below only 1% of abortion is due to rape and .5% due to incest), I am talking about the cases of consensual sex that results in pregnancy. I also don't think the US is that far off concerning contraceptives and education. I have teenage daughters and they have known about sex and where to get contraceptives if needed for years. Schools have pushed this stuff for decades. Could we do better, sure, but its really not that hard to get the pill or rubbers. Again, to pretend that is the case is disingenuous.

I struggle with my stance on abortion. I want to say a fetus is a life as soon as it has 46 chromosomes, but I am not totally convinced. If given the environment to survive, it can only develop into a person. We all need the correct environment to survive, the fetus is just a little different in that is is wholly dependent on the mother. Heck, even a newborn needs a lot help from mom or dad to survive, they will never survive if left alone. Not all that different from a fetus. With that said, I am not sure that is where life begins. What about a heart beat, brain activity, I just don't know, but I am willing to listen to most arguments. The ones that turn me off are about the "comfort" of the women's life if they have the baby. That is something that should be considered before the act of sex is carried out. Personal responsibly and all.

The far left and the far right are causing a lot of the problems in this country, Neither of those are willing to listen to the other side and comprise when the rest of us in the middle just want to get theses things figured out and move on.

https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/nat ... 211175001/

bpatus297 wrote:

I think it is disingenuous to say the right wants to control a women's right to control their body. The vast majority (not the fringe minority) consider the fetus to be a life, so its not about the women's right to choose, rather protecting an unborn life. You must look at the actually views and arguments of both sides to try to reach a compromise. Saying the right wants to just control women is doing nothing constructive and by all accounts not true.

Personally, I don't know what the right answer is. I have heard people say that women should be able to just have an abortion because it would be a burden to her and society. I have trouble with this. If someone becomes mentally ill and becomes a "burden" on society, should we kill them? That is not that much different than the burden to society argument.

It takes two to tango, and there are repercussions for those actions, such as pregnancy. I am talking about 98.5% of the cases that are not rape or incest (according to the link below only 1% of abortion is due to rape and .5% due to incest), I am talking about the cases of consensual sex that results in pregnancy. I also don't think the US is that far off concerning contraceptives and education. I have teenage daughters and they have known about sex and where to get contraceptives if needed for years. Schools have pushed this stuff for decades. Could we do better, sure, but its really not that hard to get the pill or rubbers. Again, to pretend that is the case is disingenuous.

I struggle with my stance on abortion. I want to say a fetus is a life as soon as it has 46 chromosomes, but I am not totally convinced. If given the environment to survive, it can only develop into a person. We all need the correct environment to survive, the fetus is just a little different in that is is wholly dependent on the mother. Heck, even a newborn needs a lot help from mom or dad to survive, they will never survive if left alone. Not all that different from a fetus. With that said, I am not sure that is where life begins. What about a heart beat, brain activity, I just don't know, but I am willing to listen to most arguments. The ones that turn me off are about the "comfort" of the women's life if they have the baby. That is something that should be considered before the act of sex is carried out. Personal responsibly and all.

The far left and the far right are causing a lot of the problems in this country, Neither of those are willing to listen to the other side and comprise when the rest of us in the middle just want to get theses things figured out and move on.

https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/nat ... 211175001/

Then we should fast track tech that could implant men with the fetus and carry it to term. Roll the die odd/even, or rock paper scissors on who takes it if the woman doesn't.
Easy to talk and pontificate if it's not your life at risk.

The talk about far right/far left is a strawman. This shouldn't be a political thing and isn't in most of the world.

bpatus297 wrote:

I think it is disingenuous to say the right wants to control a women's right to control their body. The vast majority (not the fringe minority) consider the fetus to be a life, so its not about the women's right to choose, rather protecting an unborn life. You must look at the actually views and arguments of both sides to try to reach a compromise. Saying the right wants to just control women is doing nothing constructive and by all accounts not true.

It's simply a matter of judging the actions rather than the words. When I look at what the right does on abortions, I ask two questions. "Does this reduce unwanted pregnancies?" The answer is usually no. "Does this punish a woman for having sex?" The answer is usually yes. Before they pulled this stunt, Texas had previously mandated a medically unnecessary ultrasound for anyone seeking abortions - doing nothing about the fact that the woman had become pregnant in the first place, just seeking to make abortions as invasive and personally uncomfortable as possible. If the right has some other explanation for why their legislation always seems to turn out this way, I'm certainly all ears, but as it is I'm just applying Occam's Razor.

bpatus297 wrote:

Neither of those are willing to listen to the other side and comprise when the rest of us in the middle just want to get theses things figured out and move on.

https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/nat ... 211175001/

This is true but 'figuring things out' requires discussing things in a nuanced way, which helps to arrive at middling conclusions. That's what SCOTUS largely did with Roe - the justices said the question of when life begins was essentially philosophical and not properly addressed by a court. But insofar as a pregnancy is a medical condition with life-altering decisions for a woman to consider in consultation with herself, family, and a doctor, it was reasonable to place that context within the private decision-making applied to other life situations, and use medical science for guidance where applicable. That's why most countries allowing abortion have a cut off between 20 and 23 weeks, when viability can be medically established with relative certainty.

I agree that simplistic arguments do nothing for an issue like this generally, but the strong disconnect between the right's hollering about rights of the unborn while simultaneously voting against many programs that would benefit kids born in difficult circumstances seriously calls sincerity of those positions into doubt. Which logically leads to wondering what such activists really think about the personal lives of women and what to do about them. And those opinions seem to be based more often on judgment than science.

Without going into the various nuances of how people get into difficult life and relationship situations, it's enough to say that people are complicated and people have a variety of ways of encountering unintended consequences. Many adults are not emotionally mature enough for adult relationships but they don't know that and attempt them anyway, because that's nature at work.

I don't like the idea of abortion but I see it as a necessary evil as a last resort. Sure, it's preferable if women who find themselves in trouble carry a child to term to be adopted, but they may not have the financial, family, or emotional resources to do so - and most considering abortion probably don't. At the end of the day, logically, it doesn't matter so much why a woman decides what she does, because it's not really any of our business. We would not order a perfect genetic match for an organ transplant to give up part of their body to save someone else's life - that would be their decision to make. By the same token, we cannot reasonably order a woman to offer up her uterus to save a life, if that process is not something she is willing to carry through.

Aaron747 wrote:

bpatus297 wrote:

Neither of those are willing to listen to the other side and comprise when the rest of us in the middle just want to get theses things figured out and move on.

https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/nat ... 211175001/

I don't like the idea of abortion but I see it as a necessary evil as a last resort. Sure, it's preferable if women who find themselves in trouble carry a child to term to be adopted, but they may not have the financial, family, or emotional resources to do so - and most considering abortion probably don't. At the end of the day, logically, it doesn't matter so much why a woman decides what she does, because it's not really any of our business. We would not order a perfect genetic match for an organ transplant to give up part of their body to save someone else's life - that would be their decision to make. By the same token, we cannot reasonably order a woman to offer up her uterus to save a life, if that process is not something she is willing to carry through.

A great discussion
One point I will add is that there is a certain predilection towards assigning blame and forcing someone to do something different, rather than looking at why someone chooses something different and work towards addressing those areas.
The USA today article points out economic, emotional, and life stage issues that women face when making this decision. Those issues being addressed would probably do more for dropping the rate of abortions than any restrictions ever will.

Certain political factions like to denigrate the "Cradle to Grave" model, but all of us can look at the world and know that we need assistance when we are young and we will probably need it again when we are old. In the middle we can generally be productive with great support systems surrounding us. We need to look at pregnancy as a chance to start helping at the cradle stage. We need more maternity /Paternity leave in the US. We need more support for working mothers(preschool, pre k) . We need more affordable healthcare during those stages to ensure health of the mother and baby are looked after. If we start looking at those solutions, the amount of women and families that see abortion as a solution will diminish.

Aaron747 wrote:

I don't like the idea of abortion but I see it as a necessary evil as a last resort. Sure, it's preferable if women who find themselves in trouble carry a child to term to be adopted, but they may not have the financial, family, or emotional resources to do so - and most considering abortion probably don't. At the end of the day, logically, it doesn't matter so much why a woman decides what she does, because it's not really any of our business. We would not order a perfect genetic match for an organ transplant to give up part of their body to save someone else's life - that would be their decision to make. By the same token, we cannot reasonably order a woman to offer up her uterus to save a life, if that process is not something she is willing to carry through.

One thing that would significantly help things is if we stopped calling abortions a problem. They are not a problem, they are merely a symptom exposing a greater problem - namely, our society's lack of internal security. Aside from the health aspects of terminating a pregnancy (for either child or mother) and the cases where the woman was unconsenually conceived, let's look at the reasons why someone isn't ready to bring a baby into the world. Financial? Wages are horribly low compared to cost of living, and the cost of raising a child properly in the face of having a low wage job with expensive or unavailable child care is extremely high. Then there's the health care costs - first to give birth, then all scheduled and unscheduled medical facility visits throughout the child's life. Without proper insurance and our country's resistance to single payer, those costs can be very scary. There's crime considerations - potentially being in an area of poverty/high crime that can discourage someone from wanting to bring a human into that environment. There are also sociological factors (strength of family/friend support, mental health of the mother) that are relevant but hard to quantify. Abortion rates are high because our country is a scary place to raise a child. Banning abortions are only treating one symptom and not really dealing with the reason why abortion rates are so high to begin with. If we fix our country - guarantee people a living wage, affordable health care, lower the poverty/crime rate, then abortions will naturally come down along side those.

In contrast to Texas, Mexico went the right way and decriminalized abortion: https://www.nytimes.com/2021/09/07/worl ... rtion.html

Criminalizing abortion is unconstitutional, Mexico’s Supreme Court ruled on Tuesday, setting a precedent that could lead to legalization of the procedure across this conservative Catholic country of about 130 million people. The unanimous ruling from the nation’s top court follows years of efforts by a growing women’s movement in Mexico that has repeatedly taken to the streets of major cities to demand greater rights and protections.

Aaron747 wrote:

bpatus297 wrote:

Neither of those are willing to listen to the other side and comprise when the rest of us in the middle just want to get theses things figured out and move on.

https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/nat ... 211175001/

This is true but 'figuring things out' requires discussing things in a nuanced way, which helps to arrive at middling conclusions. That's what SCOTUS largely did with Roe - the justices said the question of when life begins was essentially philosophical and not properly addressed by a court. But insofar as a pregnancy is a medical condition with life-altering decisions for a woman to consider in consultation with herself, family, and a doctor, it was reasonable to place that context within the private decision-making applied to other life situations, and use medical science for guidance where applicable. That's why most countries allowing abortion have a cut off between 20 and 23 weeks, when viability can be medically established with relative certainty.

I agree that simplistic arguments do nothing for an issue like this generally, but the strong disconnect between the right's hollering about rights of the unborn while simultaneously voting against many programs that would benefit kids born in difficult circumstances seriously calls sincerity of those positions into doubt. Which logically leads to wondering what such activists really think about the personal lives of women and what to do about them. And those opinions seem to be based more often on judgment than science.

Without going into the various nuances of how people get into difficult life and relationship situations, it's enough to say that people are complicated and people have a variety of ways of encountering unintended consequences. Many adults are not emotionally mature enough for adult relationships but they don't know that and attempt them anyway, because that's nature at work.

I don't like the idea of abortion but I see it as a necessary evil as a last resort. Sure, it's preferable if women who find themselves in trouble carry a child to term to be adopted, but they may not have the financial, family, or emotional resources to do so - and most considering abortion probably don't. At the end of the day, logically, it doesn't matter so much why a woman decides what she does, because it's not really any of our business. We would not order a perfect genetic match for an organ transplant to give up part of their body to save someone else's life - that would be their decision to make. By the same token, we cannot reasonably order a woman to offer up her uterus to save a life, if that process is not something she is willing to carry through.

I agree about the judgement part. Pretty sure the Bible tells us not to judge others. Regardless of weather not you are religions I find it best to adopt a live and let live stance. I am willing to talk to people and let them know my viewpoints and why I have them, but at the end of the day their decision is theirs and they have to live with it. (nice run-on!) But I wrestle with the live and let live part of abortion, because I am not sure the the fetus isnt alive. If it is, I find it out duty to protect the innocent and those who cannot protect themselves. Like I said, I wrestle internally with this subject.

FGITD wrote:

Willjet wrote:

The talk about far right/far left is a strawman. This shouldn't be a political thing and isn't in most of the world.

Perfectly phrased.

It’s fun to shift the narrative a little bit.

Imagine instead of talking about an unwanted pregnancy, we’re now talking about a liver transplant for a long time alcoholic.

Shouldn’t they have to suffer the consequences of their actions? Sorry but when you picked up that bottle you knew there was a chance this could happen. I know you tried to be safe, but then you got really into it and kept drinking because it was fun. Now you’ve got a lifelong consequence as a result…but that’s ok, we’ll just fix you right up! Hell, you’ll be back at the bar knocking them back again in no time!

oh you had a sex once as a teenager and got pregnant? You should’ve known better. Enjoy dealing with this forever.

It’s a health issue. Not a political issue. We’re in a bizarre world where the government can’t tell you to wear a mask, but can force you to keep a baby. And if you don’t see the problem with that, then you are the problem.

But there is zero chance a liver is a living being. There is a good argument that a fetus is.

I guess I am wondering if people here that are against abortion would be in favor of having free birth control available to "of age" women here in the USA. It would certainly help with the issue and, as I understand it, the only reason why one wouldn't want that would be religious which has little legal or societal validity as no one is forcing anyone to take it and the cost is negligible and certainly no worse than other "religiously objectionable" things the USA funds.

Tugg

The conservative right invented abortion as a hot button issue in order to attack Democrats. It didn't come from the bible. Southern Baptists several decades ago refused to speak on the issue because scripture did not. Then they got infected by politics.

Tugger wrote:

I guess I am wondering if people here that are against abortion would be in favor of having free birth control available to "of age" women here in the USA. It would certainly help with the issue and, as I understand it, the only reason why one wouldn't want that would be religious which has little legal or societal validity as no one is forcing anyone to take it and the cost is negligible and certainly no worse than other "religiously objectionable" things the USA funds.

Tugg

There is free or very cheap birth control available all over. A simple Google search turns up all sorts of resources..

bpatus297 wrote:

Tugger wrote:

I guess I am wondering if people here that are against abortion would be in favor of having free birth control available to "of age" women here in the USA. It would certainly help with the issue and, as I understand it, the only reason why one wouldn't want that would be religious which has little legal or societal validity as no one is forcing anyone to take it and the cost is negligible and certainly no worse than other "religiously objectionable" things the USA funds.

Tugg

There is free or very cheap birth control available all over. A simple Google search turns up all sorts of resources..

For pubescent females?

Tugg

Tugger wrote:

bpatus297 wrote:

Tugger wrote:

I guess I am wondering if people here that are against abortion would be in favor of having free birth control available to "of age" women here in the USA. It would certainly help with the issue and, as I understand it, the only reason why one wouldn't want that would be religious which has little legal or societal validity as no one is forcing anyone to take it and the cost is negligible and certainly no worse than other "religiously objectionable" things the USA funds.

Tugg

There is free or very cheap birth control available all over. A simple Google search turns up all sorts of resources..

For pubescent females?

Tugg

Yes.

https://www.plannedparenthood.org/learn ... permission

bpatus297 wrote:

Tugger wrote:

bpatus297 wrote:

There is free or very cheap birth control available all over. A simple Google search turns up all sorts of resources..

For pubescent females?

Tugg

Yes.

https://www.plannedparenthood.org/learn ... permission

That's at 16. Puberty hits at 12-13 for most girls. And I suspect that most don't want to have to go to PP. I am talking about over the counter. They can by tampons, they can get birth control pills. (I would think it would be OTC at the pharmacy, whether at a Walgreens or Publix or wherever.)

Tugg

The Texas abortion law is going to fail - especially with the Fed filing. The Boston Globe article I posted (https://www.bostonglobe.com/2021/09/07/ ... rtion-law/) is a classic nail in the coffin - and an embarrassment for the USSC's FUBAR initial decision on this case. The Chief Justice was smart enough to refuse to support it, but Justice Pubic Hair and Justice Erection both gave us what we would have expected.

bpatus297 wrote:

Kent350787 wrote:

The countries with the easiest access to abortion have the lowest abortion rates. (and good sex education and access to contraception)

Just sayin'.....

Do you have anything confirming this?

Research such as this appears to indicate that it is the case https://www.guttmacher.org/fact-sheet/i ... -worldwide

Both abortion and teen pregnancies are far lower in Germany and the Netherlands than the USA. The high rate of teen pregnancies in the UK is an interesting anomaly in the UK, but likely relates to income disparity.

bpatus297 wrote:

Tugger wrote:

I guess I am wondering if people here that are against abortion would be in favor of having free birth control available to "of age" women here in the USA. It would certainly help with the issue and, as I understand it, the only reason why one wouldn't want that would be religious which has little legal or societal validity as no one is forcing anyone to take it and the cost is negligible and certainly no worse than other "religiously objectionable" things the USA funds.

Tugg

There is free or very cheap birth control available all over. A simple Google search turns up all sorts of resources..

There certainly is, but that doesn't guarantee it is used without fail. How many people do you know who can be relied on to take a medication at the same time, daily, without fail? Women on BCP need regular checkups to ensure their combo is working for them - can they afford this if under or noninsured? And then we're not even talking about the number of young women from troubled backgrounds who get into unhealthy relationships with emotionally manipulative men. Will they stand their ground if their guy says 'I don't want to use a rubber this time'? People are far too black and white on this - 'oh the tools are available, nobody has an excuse' really lacks imagination and/or exposure to different life circumstances.

LittleFokker wrote:

There's crime considerations - potentially being in an area of poverty/high crime that can discourage someone from wanting to bring a human into that environment. There are also sociological factors (strength of family/friend support, mental health of the mother) that are relevant but hard to quantify. Abortion rates are high because our country is a scary place to raise a child. Banning abortions are only treating one symptom and not really dealing with the reason why abortion rates are so high to begin with. If we fix our country - guarantee people a living wage, affordable health care, lower the poverty/crime rate, then abortions will naturally come down along side those.

History has shown it to be sort of the opposite

Research has shown as abortion was legalized in the early 70s in the US, and as the number of abortions on demand rose, the number of unwanted children decreased. These children, disproportionally poor and with little opportunity, would have turned to crime. By the time they would have become teens/young adults into the 90s this caused a decrease in the crime rates in the US at the same time. Research matched this to the legalization of abortion.

sierrakilo44 wrote:

LittleFokker wrote:

There's crime considerations - potentially being in an area of poverty/high crime that can discourage someone from wanting to bring a human into that environment. There are also sociological factors (strength of family/friend support, mental health of the mother) that are relevant but hard to quantify. Abortion rates are high because our country is a scary place to raise a child. Banning abortions are only treating one symptom and not really dealing with the reason why abortion rates are so high to begin with. If we fix our country - guarantee people a living wage, affordable health care, lower the poverty/crime rate, then abortions will naturally come down along side those.

History has shown it to be sort of the opposite

Research has shown as abortion was legalized in the early 70s in the US, and as the number of abortions on demand rose, the number of unwanted children decreased. These children, disproportionally poor and with little opportunity, would have turned to crime. By the time they would have become teens/young adults into the 90s this caused a decrease in the crime rates in the US at the same time. Research matched this to the legalization of abortion.

I don't think crime has anything at all to do with abortion. There are women who have used abortion as birth control. No one but no one disputes this. Abortion is also used for ectopic pregnancies and fetuses that will not survive because of undeveloped organs or because the mother will not survive. This notion that abortion is a "one size fits all" answer is completely wrong. For some women, it is what they want. For others, they want to abort. That is what pro-choice is about. Letting women decide what is best for them. Not judging if they are doing it for their own personal health or birth control or whatever reason. AND not judging if they want to carry the fetus to term, even knowing that fetus will not survive or require around the clock care for the life of the baby.

My SIL carried a deformed fetus to term. He survived less than 18 hours outside the womb. I kept my mouth shut because it was not my decision. It was between my brother and his wife. And I fully support their decision. And you bet I grieved and mourned with them. And never ever judged. Because what is the point? They did what they wanted for them. Family first.

bpatus297 wrote:

You must look at the actually views and arguments of both sides to try to reach a compromise.

Why do think that has not already been done? There are times when one side of an argument is genuinely wrong. This is one.

bpatus297 wrote:

Saying the right wants to just control women is doing nothing constructive and by all accounts not true.

False Equivalency does nothing constructive.


The right wants to control women. This is by all objective accounts true.

bpatus297 wrote:

Personally, I don't know what the right answer is.

I do not either. This is not it.

bpatus297 wrote:

I have heard people say that women should be able to just have an abortion because it would be a burden to her and society.

A woman does not need a reason for an abortion.
That is the thing people are missing here.

bpatus297 wrote:

I have trouble with this. If someone becomes mentally ill and becomes a "burden" on society, should we kill them? That is not that much different than the burden to society argument.

Wrong argument. Look at it as a construction in stead.

If you are the only person who can save someone's life, you still cannot be compelled legally to do so.

A far more compelling slippery slope argument would be that you should be concerned with laws being made requiring bone marrow donations in cases of rare matches.

bpatus297 wrote:

I think it is disingenuous to say the right wants to control a women's right to control their body. The vast majority (not the fringe minority) consider the fetus to be a life, so its not about the women's right to choose, rather protecting an unborn life.

Do you show the same concern for other lives ? Are you a vegan ? Don't step on insects ?

Life is everywhere on the planet, the US right usually doesn't care about killing it on a mass scale.

Tugger wrote:

I guess I am wondering if people here that are against abortion would be in favor of having free birth control available to "of age" women here in the USA. It would certainly help with the issue and, as I understand it, the only reason why one wouldn't want that would be religious which has little legal or societal validity as no one is forcing anyone to take it and the cost is negligible and certainly no worse than other "religiously objectionable" things the USA funds.

Tugg

As an aside the French government just announced free contraception for women up to 25. There is a push to go for all women so I wouldn't be surprised if it happens (I would add all men to that...).

It's already available to teens, including at school, and without parental consent. But often "older young women" might be out of luck, not have additional health insurance covering this, etc. (they still have health insurance, can see a gynecologist, but depending on the contraception it might cost something). We also have planned parenthood but not everywhere;

Most French people above 25 have a mutual health insurance (can even get it for free if you're poor) and that will cover contraception.

I suspect the announcement might have been done in the wake of the Texas story.

Kent350787 wrote:

bpatus297 wrote:

Kent350787 wrote:

The countries with the easiest access to abortion have the lowest abortion rates. (and good sex education and access to contraception)

Just sayin'.....

Do you have anything confirming this?

Research such as this appears to indicate that it is the case https://www.guttmacher.org/fact-sheet/i ... -worldwide

Both abortion and teen pregnancies are far lower in Germany and the Netherlands than the USA. The high rate of teen pregnancies in the UK is an interesting anomaly in the UK, but likely relates to income disparity.

I didn't get a real clear picture from that article. It would be interesting to see the data they based the article on.

I don't understand how they make the following connection:

"Unintended pregnancy rates are highest in countries that restrict abortion access and lowest in countries where abortion is broadly legal. As a result, abortion rates are similar in countries where abortion is restricted and those where the procedure is broadly legal (i.e., where it is available on request or on socioeconomic grounds)."

So unintended pregnancy rates are higher in countries that restrict abortions. Okay I get that, and that is a good thing, but I think the next part is a pretty big leap. I am not convinced by the article about the similar abortion rates. I think they can't draw a real conclusion on that data point without a lot more research.

Aaron747 wrote:

bpatus297 wrote:

Tugger wrote:

I guess I am wondering if people here that are against abortion would be in favor of having free birth control available to "of age" women here in the USA. It would certainly help with the issue and, as I understand it, the only reason why one wouldn't want that would be religious which has little legal or societal validity as no one is forcing anyone to take it and the cost is negligible and certainly no worse than other "religiously objectionable" things the USA funds.

Tugg

There is free or very cheap birth control available all over. A simple Google search turns up all sorts of resources..

There certainly is, but that doesn't guarantee it is used without fail. How many people do you know who can be relied on to take a medication at the same time, daily, without fail? Women on BCP need regular checkups to ensure their combo is working for them - can they afford this if under or noninsured? And then we're not even talking about the number of young women from troubled backgrounds who get into unhealthy relationships with emotionally manipulative men. Will they stand their ground if their guy says 'I don't want to use a rubber this time'? People are far too black and white on this - 'oh the tools are available, nobody has an excuse' really lacks imagination and/or exposure to different life circumstances.

Weather or not some actually uses the tools available is not what we are discussing. Several people have made the argument that we need abortions because people get pregnant due to lack of access to birth control. I am just pointing out that argument is false.

DarkSnowyNight wrote:

bpatus297 wrote:

You must look at the actually views and arguments of both sides to try to reach a compromise.

Why do think that has not already been done? There are times when one side of an argument is genuinely wrong. This is one.

-Because people keep parroting that the pro-lifers just want to control women. That is not correct for a vast majority. Those folks genuinely are wrestling with the notion of when life begins.

bpatus297 wrote:

Saying the right wants to just control women is doing nothing constructive and by all accounts not true.

False Equivalency does nothing constructive.


The right wants to control women. This is by all objective accounts true.

-Maybe in your mind, but its not.

bpatus297 wrote:

Personally, I don't know what the right answer is.

I do not either. This is not it.

-Not once did I EVER say I support this law.

bpatus297 wrote:

I have heard people say that women should be able to just have an abortion because it would be a burden to her and society.

A woman does not need a reason for an abortion.
That is the thing people are missing here.

-You are missing the point that the other side thinks its about two lives, not just the mother.

bpatus297 wrote:

I have trouble with this. If someone becomes mentally ill and becomes a "burden" on society, should we kill them? That is not that much different than the burden to society argument.

Wrong argument. Look at it as a construction in stead.

If you are the only person who can save someone's life, you still cannot be compelled legally to do so.

-I am not compelled to do so, but I am drawn to do so. I have been my whole life, I guess we are just wired different.

A far more compelling slippery slope argument would be that you should be concerned with laws being made requiring bone marrow donations in cases of rare matches.

-I do not support that.

Aesma wrote:

bpatus297 wrote:

I think it is disingenuous to say the right wants to control a women's right to control their body. The vast majority (not the fringe minority) consider the fetus to be a life, so its not about the women's right to choose, rather protecting an unborn life.

Do you show the same concern for other lives ? Are you a vegan ? Don't step on insects ?

Life is everywhere on the planet, the US right usually doesn't care about killing it on a mass scale.

I generally don't try to kill other living things. I don't intentionally step on bugs, but I do spray my house for them. I am not a vegan, but I am human which makes me an omnivore. As such, I eat plants, fruit, and meat. I don't hunt, but don't have issues with people who hunt and eat what they kill. I don't support hunting simply for game. So yes, I have a general respect for life, regardless of what that life is, but we are talking about human beings. This is 100% a false equivalency, are you saying an ant is the same as a person or are you just being sanctimonious? I am trying to have a genuine conversation and all you want to do is put someone else down because they have a different opinion.

bpatus297 wrote:

Aaron747 wrote:

bpatus297 wrote:

There is free or very cheap birth control available all over. A simple Google search turns up all sorts of resources..

There certainly is, but that doesn't guarantee it is used without fail. How many people do you know who can be relied on to take a medication at the same time, daily, without fail? Women on BCP need regular checkups to ensure their combo is working for them - can they afford this if under or noninsured? And then we're not even talking about the number of young women from troubled backgrounds who get into unhealthy relationships with emotionally manipulative men. Will they stand their ground if their guy says 'I don't want to use a rubber this time'? People are far too black and white on this - 'oh the tools are available, nobody has an excuse' really lacks imagination and/or exposure to different life circumstances.

Weather or not some actually uses the tools available is not what we are discussing. Several people have made the argument that we need abortions because people get pregnant due to lack of access to birth control. I am just pointing out that argument is false.

Fair enough, but you did make earlier comments about what should be considered 'before the act is carried out'. My point is that even with birth control available and used, and even with the best of intentions, things happen - for a variety of reasons - and not all of them can pregnant women simply be blamed for.

Moral arguments against abortion:

That a fetus is not a person, or human because it depends on the mother. So if someone goes into a coma, and depends on a machine to live, do we just call it quits on that person?

That a fetus is not a person or human because they don't have their organs developed. So people that have transplanted organs or some missing, or a machine that helps their heart work properly, would we also quit on them?

That a fetus is not a person or human because they are asleep and not conscious ? So tonight when you go to sleep and you are unconscious, would you let your wife kill you and claim you were asleep?

That a woman doesn't want the burden of raising a child. Well, why isn't adoption an option? many people are willing to adopt, and in many cases long waiting lists exist that couples wait even years to adopt.

That the child when it gets born will become a burden to society and go into life of crime. That's not realistic, I know of many cases of people born into poverty and into areas of high crime, they never ended up going into crime, in fact they became very successful people. Ask them what would they think if his mother aborted them.

That a the child will cost too much money to raise. Since when are we born with a dollar tag attached to us? isn't life something that is not worth any money?

That the woman and child will suffer. What's to say there won't be any suffering after the abortion?

All roads lead to infanticide. If I can't take care or deal with a child, I might as well kill it. That's the argument.

These are just some moral arguments, I am not getting into religious or legal arguments.

If there was any justice in Texas (I know, keep on dreaming) any person who's been sued under this law should be able to counter-sue the male responsible for impregnating the women, to the tune of all costs and damages awarded in the suit plus a couple of millions for "emotional damage".

But we all know this ain't going to happen; the old, white, reactionaries who can only get an erection courtesy of a chemical injection is not interested in justice. Their sole interest is to turn Texas into a radical Christian Talibanas and run that sordid state as per the old testament.

AirWorthy99 wrote:

Moral arguments against abortion:

That a fetus is not a person, or human because it depends on the mother. So if someone goes into a coma, and depends on a machine to live, do we just call it quits on that person?

That a fetus is not a person or human because they don't have their organs developed. So people that have transplanted organs or some missing, or a machine that helps their heart work properly, would we also quit on them?

That a fetus is not a person or human because they are asleep and not conscious ? So tonight when you go to sleep and you are unconscious, would you let your wife kill you and claim you were asleep?

That a woman doesn't want the burden of raising a child. Well, why isn't adoption an option? many people are willing to adopt, and in many cases long waiting lists exist that couples wait even years to adopt.

That the child when it gets born will become a burden to society and go into life of crime. That's not realistic, I know of many cases of people born into poverty and into areas of high crime, they never ended up going into crime, in fact they became very successful people. Ask them what would they think if his mother aborted them.

That a the child will cost too much money to raise. Since when are we born with a dollar tag attached to us? isn't life something that is not worth any money?

That the woman and child will suffer. What's to say there won't be any suffering after the abortion?

All roads lead to infanticide. If I can't take care or deal with a child, I might as well kill it. That's the argument.

These are just some moral arguments, I am not getting into religious or legal arguments.

I just looked up "straw man" argument on Wikipedia and it referred me to your post

Virtual737 wrote:

AirWorthy99 wrote:

Moral arguments against abortion:

That a fetus is not a person, or human because it depends on the mother. So if someone goes into a coma, and depends on a machine to live, do we just call it quits on that person?

That a fetus is not a person or human because they don't have their organs developed. So people that have transplanted organs or some missing, or a machine that helps their heart work properly, would we also quit on them?

That a fetus is not a person or human because they are asleep and not conscious ? So tonight when you go to sleep and you are unconscious, would you let your wife kill you and claim you were asleep?

That a woman doesn't want the burden of raising a child. Well, why isn't adoption an option? many people are willing to adopt, and in many cases long waiting lists exist that couples wait even years to adopt.

That the child when it gets born will become a burden to society and go into life of crime. That's not realistic, I know of many cases of people born into poverty and into areas of high crime, they never ended up going into crime, in fact they became very successful people. Ask them what would they think if his mother aborted them.

That a the child will cost too much money to raise. Since when are we born with a dollar tag attached to us? isn't life something that is not worth any money?

That the woman and child will suffer. What's to say there won't be any suffering after the abortion?

All roads lead to infanticide. If I can't take care or deal with a child, I might as well kill it. That's the argument.

These are just some moral arguments, I am not getting into religious or legal arguments.

I just looked up "straw man" argument on Wikipedia and it referred me to your post

The first line ignores the notion of a living will, and brain death, at which point other folks have to make the call. It doesn't even rise to straw man.

casinterest wrote:

Virtual737 wrote:

AirWorthy99 wrote:

Moral arguments against abortion:

That a fetus is not a person, or human because it depends on the mother. So if someone goes into a coma, and depends on a machine to live, do we just call it quits on that person?

That a fetus is not a person or human because they don't have their organs developed. So people that have transplanted organs or some missing, or a machine that helps their heart work properly, would we also quit on them?

That a fetus is not a person or human because they are asleep and not conscious ? So tonight when you go to sleep and you are unconscious, would you let your wife kill you and claim you were asleep?

That a woman doesn't want the burden of raising a child. Well, why isn't adoption an option? many people are willing to adopt, and in many cases long waiting lists exist that couples wait even years to adopt.

That the child when it gets born will become a burden to society and go into life of crime. That's not realistic, I know of many cases of people born into poverty and into areas of high crime, they never ended up going into crime, in fact they became very successful people. Ask them what would they think if his mother aborted them.

That a the child will cost too much money to raise. Since when are we born with a dollar tag attached to us? isn't life something that is not worth any money?

That the woman and child will suffer. What's to say there won't be any suffering after the abortion?

All roads lead to infanticide. If I can't take care or deal with a child, I might as well kill it. That's the argument.

These are just some moral arguments, I am not getting into religious or legal arguments.

I just looked up "straw man" argument on Wikipedia and it referred me to your post

The first line ignores the notion of a living will, and brain death, at which point other folks have to make the call. It doesn't even rise to straw man.

Life experiences will tell you otherwise.

Just recently a friend of the family was involved in a motorcycle accident. Went into a coma, Doctors decided to divvy up all working organs because this person wasn't going to live. They removed the machines.

Today that person is walking and alive at his home, after spending some months in a hospital.

Not making this up, you can look up the thousands of cases of people that come back from a coma.