Abortion

  • The Master

    The Master (15)

    :
    Member
    Gender:
    Age:
    24
    Location:
    United Kingdom
    kafka.:
    ^ Not to mention that such an attitude assumes doctors are complete idiots - repeated abortions can pose very serious health risks, of course your doctor will mention this and offer to give you additional information on your birth control options. One imagines that with how widely accepted shaming women for having abortions is, if you're "lucky" enough to have an especially preachy doctor who assumes you're an idiot, you might even get a whole lecture on how to properly use birth control / why you should get sterilized.
    Exactly. I mean, in the UK you need approval of two doctors to get an abortion. If one's your GP, they will say something about it. They won't blithely approve you to have abortion after abortion without saying something. Christ, everytime I see my doctor they will talk about issues that they think are directly related to my general health (such as my weight and my depression). If I started to ask about abortions then they will talk about birth control with me (a highly unlikely event but yeah).
    April 1st, 2012 at 10:17pm
  • Skittlemeister.

    Skittlemeister. (150)

    :
    Member
    Gender:
    Age:
    24
    Location:
    United States
    Kurtni:
    That sounds like a horrible abuse of government power to even suggest sterilization to anyone, and like you buy into the stereotype that women who have abortions are sluts and get them flippantly.

    Do you realize this stereotype of a woman who gets an abortion every other month is not a real person nor a legitimate concern? That's pro-life propaganda at its finest.
    Not saying they are sluts, maybe they are improperly taking their birth control and don't care. It really doesn't make sense for a woman to want get abortion after abortion rather than properly take birth control, especially if they made it more easily accessible. Yes, I know it can and does fail, but if it keeps failing, it's probably not the birth control's fault but maybe that of the user. Women need to be better educated on proper usage of birth control to prevent abortions.

    Before someone tries to twist my words, I'm only talking about cases of birth control, not incest or rape victims.
    April 2nd, 2012 at 04:02am
  • Kurtni

    Kurtni (10075)

    :
    Member
    Gender:
    Age:
    22
    Location:
    United States
    Skittlemeister.:
    Not saying they are sluts, maybe they are improperly taking their birth control and don't care. It really doesn't make sense for a woman to want get abortion after abortion rather than properly take birth control, especially if they made it more easily accessible. Yes, I know it can and does fail, but if it keeps failing, it's probably not the birth control's fault but maybe that of the user. Women need to be better educated on proper usage of birth control to prevent abortions.

    Before someone tries to twist my words, I'm only talking about cases of birth control, not incest or rape victims.
    I'm not trying to twist your words by any means, but the things you're saying have really offensive implications.

    This is a problem you're making up. There are no women out there getting abortion after abortion, precisely for the reason kafka. said- no medical doctor would permit such a thing. To pass legislation requiring forced sterilization after x number of abortions would be an utter waste of government resources and time because it would apply to such a minuscule amount of women, if any.

    You can use birth control 100% correctly and still become pregnant, so I don't think judging women in cases of failed birth control is any more acceptable than judging women who have been raped or abused.

    Multiple abortions is a rare occurrence, and where it does occur, mostly developing countries, birth control is a luxury most women don't have access to, and the fact that these women are willing to get unsafe abortions performed by non-medical personnel shows how extreme their circumstances are, both socially and financially. The picture you're painting of the irresponsible women who just doesn't give a damn is plain inaccurate, and demeaning to women who face such difficult challenges with their reproductive rights and health.
    Quote
    An estimated 215 million women in the developing world have an unmet need for modern contraceptives, meaning they want to avoid a pregnancy but are using a low-efficacy traditional family planning method or no method.
    Quote
    In the developing world, women’s reasons for not using contraceptives most commonly include concerns about possible side-effects, the belief that they are not at risk of getting pregnant, poor access to family planning, and their partners’ opposition to contraception.
    Your reasoning of "don't care" doesn't make the list.
    http://www.guttmacher.org/pubs/fb_IAW.html
    April 2nd, 2012 at 04:07am
  • Skittlemeister.

    Skittlemeister. (150)

    :
    Member
    Gender:
    Age:
    24
    Location:
    United States
    ^ Thanks for clearing that up for me, seriously. Mr. Green I guess I can say now if that situation were to happen, as unlikely as it apparently is, would be the only time I would oppose it.
    Kurtni:
    Multiple abortions is a rare occurrence, and where it does occur, mostly developing countries, birth control is a luxury most women don't have access to, and the fact that these women are willing to get unsafe abortions performed by non-medical personnel shows how extreme their circumstances are, both socially and financially. The picture you're painting of the irresponsible women who just doesn't give a damn is plain inaccurate, and demeaning to women who face such difficult challenges with their reproductive rights and health.
    As for that, I should have stated I was talking about the States, and if birth control was made more accessible. I apologize for not making that clear, but I do have a few family members who don't give a damn about their birth control and take it when they remember to, maybe that's where my opinion is forming from.

    As of now, my stance is indifferent. It's a subject I'm uncomfortable with because I don't like the idea of it, but I'm not gonna condemn someone who needed to get one.
    April 2nd, 2012 at 04:30am
  • Kurtni

    Kurtni (10075)

    :
    Member
    Gender:
    Age:
    22
    Location:
    United States
    This kept coming up in a discussion about abortion on the journals, and several pro-choice people held the opinion that the way to deal with the abortion controversy was simply to mind your own business and not tell anyone else what to do ie, "If you don't want an abortion, don't get one, and if someone wants to, that's their business."

    I feel like those are the absolute most dangerous words that can come out of someone's mouth who supports abortion rights. Because the prolife community is passionate about their cause, and they will never "mind their own business," because from their perspective it's a matter of killing babies, and to expect them to passively accept abortion is unrealistic, and just plain dangerous when you look at the restrictive abortion legislation that is making its way through so many states in America and an all too conservative Supreme Court waiting for the right case to come along to challenge Roe v. Wade.

    The fact of the matter is, the prolife community, in America, is having a much larger impact on politics than the prochoice community in terms of legislation, and they're not going to keep quiet when they're having measurable success. The "live and let live" apathetic approach to abortion rights is essentially just giving the prochoice community the goahead to do whatever they want with your uterus.
    April 22nd, 2012 at 05:17pm
  • dru is beautiful.

    dru is beautiful. (1270)

    :
    Member
    Gender:
    Age:
    27
    Location:
    United States
    Kurtni:
    This kept coming up in a discussion about abortion on the journals, and several pro-choice people held the opinion that the way to deal with the abortion controversy was simply to mind your own business and not tell anyone else what to do ie, "If you don't want an abortion, don't get one, and if someone wants to, that's their business."

    I feel like those are the absolute most dangerous words that can come out of someone's mouth who supports abortion rights. Because the prolife community is passionate about their cause, and they will never "mind their own business," because from their perspective it's a matter of killing babies, and to expect them to passively accept abortion is unrealistic, and just plain dangerous when you look at the restrictive abortion legislation that is making its way through so many states in America and an all too conservative Supreme Court waiting for the right case to come along to challenge Roe v. Wade.
    Well, the pro-choice community is right in that that's the way it should be. But they're wrong because that's not the way it is. You can't give Utopian advice in a non-Utopian society. That's why I scream at protesting pro-lifers when I drive past them. File
    April 23rd, 2012 at 01:45am
  • Katlight Sparkle

    Katlight Sparkle (100)

    :
    Member
    Gender:
    Age:
    22
    Location:
    United States
    dru runs this town.:
    Well, the pro-choice community is right in that that's the way it should be. But they're wrong because that's not the way it is. You can't give Utopian advice in a non-Utopian society. That's why I scream at protesting pro-lifers when I drive past them. File
    I wouldn't say it's utopian advice, but rather the way law is actually set up*. You're supposed to have personal liberty to your own body and choices until that starts to impact other people's rights, safety, property, etc. The example I always use is drugs: You don't get arrested for using them; you get arrested for possession of an illegal substance.

    * The exception are safety and regulation laws such as the ones that outlaw things explicitly. Which is why you always find a bunch of stoners who support libertarians because they support the legalization of pot.

    I know that's not the way things work necessarily in the real world, but I feel as though telling people to keep their noses out of my uterus isn't something that I should even have to ask them to do. It should be the norm.

    The same thing usually comes up with marriage rights. Don't want a gay marriage? Don't have one! It's a simple way to protest having others' morality (or religious beliefs) being forced on people who don't agree with it.

    What I am (or am not) doing with my body does not have any affect on you, Anti-choice person, but you are actively trying to limit my rights.

    tl; dr. I know that's not how it works in real life, but wouldn't it be really nice if it did? And that's how everyone thought?
    May 4th, 2012 at 09:09am
  • dru is beautiful.

    dru is beautiful. (1270)

    :
    Member
    Gender:
    Age:
    27
    Location:
    United States
    ^
    Yup. Unfortunately, people suck.
    May 4th, 2012 at 05:43pm
  • indigo.

    indigo. (480)

    :
    Member
    Gender:
    Age:
    22
    Location:
    Macau
    Since I just read an article about it the other day, I wonder what the regulars of this forum think of "After birth abortions."

    article

    I know that it might be just a scientific, and academic "proposal" but I can't help but be angry and upset.

    Thoughts?
    May 5th, 2012 at 03:43pm
  • Katlight Sparkle

    Katlight Sparkle (100)

    :
    Member
    Gender:
    Age:
    22
    Location:
    United States
    sneakers.:
    Since I just read an article about it the other day, I wonder what the regulars of this forum think of "After birth abortions."

    article

    I know that it might be just a scientific, and academic "proposal" but I can't help but be angry and upset.

    Thoughts?
    You have every right to be angry and upset. You are always entitled to your own feelings no matter what the situation. Hey, the article upsets me, and I'm a pretty hardline abortion and euthanasia advocate. Actually, I'm livid and would desperately love to shake some sense into these vile people.

    So basically they start out with this really terrible argument that babies are dependent on their mothers--just like fetuses are dependent on their mothers right? Uhm, no. That's kind of the point. A fetus isn't a separate entity. Babies are, however. Sure, normally babies don't do so well out in the wild on their own, but someone else can physically take care of a baby.

    No one else other than the pregnant person can take care of a fetus. Being socially dependent on someone and physically dependent on someone are not the same in the least.

    People playing dumb and pretending that they can't understand the difference isn't cute and is annoying, but mostly I'm annoyed because it proves that as usual anti-choicers don't know a damn thing about what they're talking about. Not how it's done, why it's done, who has them, or anything. All they know is that it ends up with a nonexistent fetus, and they don't really seem to care about anything else.

    So the vast majority of abortions take place in the first trimester, and most of those take place very early in first trimester. If an abortion has been put off until later, it's usually because she was unable to get an abortion earlier due to lack of funds or some other reason. This makes sense because if you're pregnant and you don't want to be, normal people try to get that taken care of as soon as possible.

    So, once you get past about twelve weeks, the number of abortion sharply decreases, and if a woman is having an abortion any later than that? It's not because she wants to. There's usually something wrong with the fetus in that case or the pregnancy is life-threatening.

    So I find it incredibly misogynistic and stupid that someone thinks a woman would wait for forty weeks of pregnancy and the dangers of labor and then say Nope? The same people who think women aren't capable of making a choice, knowing what's best for them, and knowing what's inside their bodies? Think they're also terrible capricious and callous, but they still think women should raise children anyway?

    Granted, I shouldn't really be surprised by this since ninety percent of the abortion debate is about punishing women for sex.
    May 5th, 2012 at 05:36pm
  • dru is beautiful.

    dru is beautiful. (1270)

    :
    Member
    Gender:
    Age:
    27
    Location:
    United States
    After-birth abortion is infanticide and there's no getting around it.
    May 5th, 2012 at 06:33pm
  • lovecraft

    lovecraft (100)

    :
    Member
    Gender:
    Age:
    22
    Location:
    Canada
    kafka.:
    Yeah, it's a bioethics and law paper published by The Journal of Medical Ethics which is owned by the British Medical Journal group - it's not like it's a cheap ezine, it's a very prestigious journal which engages with many contemporary debates regarding medicine, ethics and laws - not just abortion, but things like euthanasia or stem cell research. The editors started getting random abuse and threats after they published that article so they wrote a blog post about why they did it.

    The newspaper article is so inflammatory and childish (because you have to be extremely naive or malicious to think that medical ethics are one of the 'world's most unnecessary occupations' - medical ethics dictates what kind of medical treatment you and the rest of humanity gets, it's extremely important) I'm having a hard time taking it seriously, but the original article raises some interesting questions, of course.
    An excellent explanation of the original source of the article.

    It's not about making after-birth abortion legal, it's about drawing attention to the holes in the arguments of both parties. And yeah, it's an uncomfortable read (because who actually wants to kill unwanted newborns?) but it's thought provoking for sure.
    May 7th, 2012 at 08:33am
  • Kurtni

    Kurtni (10075)

    :
    Member
    Gender:
    Age:
    22
    Location:
    United States
    Republicans, get in my vagina!
    May 11th, 2012 at 01:04am
  • indigo.

    indigo. (480)

    :
    Member
    Gender:
    Age:
    22
    Location:
    Macau
    Kurtni:
    Republicans, get in my vagina!
    I have no idea how the American government and voting system works but I have to admit, that video made me laugh so damn hard (but good "contemplative, thinking" laugh), I almost peed.

    "Let the Oval office, take care of your Oval Office."

    ~ On to a more serious note. I've always thought that Anti-Abortionist movements were backed more by religion than anything else - especially Christian doctrines. It's been that way since forever for my country. I wonder whether there are some exceptions out there; anti-abortion movements that have no or very little involvement with religious backing.

    Anyone know of any?
    May 12th, 2012 at 03:31pm
  • Kurtni

    Kurtni (10075)

    :
    Member
    Gender:
    Age:
    22
    Location:
    United States
    sneakers.:
    I have no idea how the American government and voting system works but I have to admit, that video made me laugh so damn hard (but good "contemplative, thinking" laugh), I almost peed.

    "Let the Oval office, take care of your Oval Office."

    ~ On to a more serious note. I've always thought that Anti-Abortionist movements were backed more by religion than anything else - especially Christian doctrines. It's been that way since forever for my country. I wonder whether there are some exceptions out there; anti-abortion movements that have no or very little involvement with religious backing.

    Anyone know of any?
    Well, there is a self proclaimed "feminist" group that is pro-life. Here is there wikipedia article, which gives a pretty accurate overview of how they see themselves, and the sources linked at the bottom are worth a read if you're interested.

    There is also a secular humanist/atheist/agnostic prolife movement, which I believe they justify by saying there is no innate purpose in the world, so the only thing that matters is life and it should be protected. I'm not as familiar with their movement, and the only website I can find is archaic and uninformative... which probably reflects and popularity and validity of their movement.

    http://www.fnsa.org/fall98/reed.html
    That's an essay that sort of blends the two.

    But, in comparison to the religious movements against abortion, these people are a minority, an astonishingly small minority.
    May 12th, 2012 at 03:41pm
  • pravda.

    pravda. (135)

    :
    Member
    Gender:
    Age:
    23
    Location:
    Neutral Zone
    Kurtni:
    Republicans, get in my vagina!
    "My omnipotent vagina."
    Best.

    This / the question from sneakers. made me think of Rush Babes. Article - well, response - about it here.

    Also, the pro-life feminism logo looks religious and, um, suss.
    Image
    May 12th, 2012 at 05:56pm
  • Kurtni

    Kurtni (10075)

    :
    Member
    Gender:
    Age:
    22
    Location:
    United States
    I don't think it's supposed to be a cross, but the female gender symbol- ♀, because it's not really their logo, just the image wikipedia uses for feminism articles.
    May 12th, 2012 at 06:05pm
  • indigo.

    indigo. (480)

    :
    Member
    Gender:
    Age:
    22
    Location:
    Macau
    Kurtni I had thought that it was supposed to be that too. : /
    May 12th, 2012 at 06:26pm
  • Kurtni

    Kurtni (10075)

    :
    Member
    Gender:
    Age:
    22
    Location:
    United States
    " Rick Santorum is urging Mitt Romney to "step up" and weaponize the issue of same-sex marriage.

    "This is a very potent weapon, if you will, for Governor Romney if he's willing to step up and take advantage of a president who is very much out of touch with the values of America," Santorum said in an eye-opening live interview with Arkansas TV station KARK, a CNN affiliate."

    http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/2012/05/12/santorum-to-romney-step-up-and-use-potent-weapon-of-same-sex-marriage/?hpt=hp_t2

    I can't believe he would proudly and publicly use the word "weapon" to describe same sex marriage. He might as well tell Romney to just burn all the fags. The scary part though, is how effective same sex marriage is at energizing the conservative, religious base. Case in point- George W Bush and Karl Rove's reelection campaign.
    May 13th, 2012 at 02:26am
  • pravda.

    pravda. (135)

    :
    Member
    Gender:
    Age:
    23
    Location:
    Neutral Zone
    Kurtni:
    I don't think it's supposed to be a cross, but the female gender symbol- ♀, because it's not really their logo, just the image wikipedia uses for feminism articles.
    -nod- I know it's the female symbol, but the fist, to me, throws off the individual elements.

    I was replying to your other point but did you intend that for the gay marriage thread?
    May 13th, 2012 at 03:39am