jeskill Posted October 12, 2012 Posted October 12, 2012 (edited) Whatever your opinion on abortion is, these statistics are quite shocking. There doesn't seem to be much 'bad-luck' in abortions (indicated by only 13% of pill users and 14% of condom users reported correct use), the statistics clearly show that abortion is primarily used as a primary form of birth control, most don't seem bothered in trying to have consistent 'safe sex'. This doesn't make sense. If, let's say, someone has an abortion afther they use the pill for a number of years, but forgets to take it one day and gets pregnant, then how are they using abortion as the primary form of birth control? Likewise, if a woman gets an abortion after a condom breaks, how are they using abortion as a primary form of birth control? I mean, I agree with the idea that contraceptive education is integral to making abortions rarer (something that, ironically, many anti-abortion advocates are against), but I don't see how not using contraceptives correctly suggests that people are using abortion as a primary form of birth control. I don't even think you could say that the 33% of women who consider themselves at low risk for pregnancy would consider themselves using abortion as a primary form of BC. I know of one such woman -- she was told that her medical condition would prohibit her from getting pregnant and was very surprised when it happened. Believe me, if she had thought she could have gotten pregnant, she would have used birth control. (She went on it afterwards.) Edited October 12, 2012 by jeskill 2
chilled_fluorine Posted October 13, 2012 Author Posted October 13, 2012 You don't get that by outlawing abortion. That point has been beaten to death. And what constitutes a valid reason. This is far too arbitrary. The vast majority of what PP does is distribute and educate on contraceptives and STI testing. an aborted fetus has no potential for future life, whether aborting by natural causes or human caused. Rape, incest, and potential harm to the mother or child are valid reasons. I agree PP almost always does contraceptives, but they do occasionally do an abortion for a reason I don't find valid. I think something has the potential for life, when IF LEFT TO NATURE, it would become a sentient human. An aborted fetus was not left to nature. An aborted fetus was ABORTED when it DID fit my description of having the potential for life, which is why I find it wrong. No one plans abortion, chilled_fluorine. We went over this. And 'potential for life' would mean that whenever a man ejaculates, he commits genocide. Actually, it's even worse than them women; see, women's bodies are designed to expel the egg if it has not fulfilled its intended potential every month. Men's bodies are not designd with this function -- whenever a man ejaculates outside a woman's womb, it is his choice, and he commits murder. Are you against masturbation? Oh, and check out page 2 in this document: http://www.plannedpa...PP_Services.pdf Abortions are a really tiny tiny tteeeeeeenny tiny percent of what Planned Parentood is *actually* doing. Another point of dogmatic propaganda won for some anti-women's-rights party. Agreed, no one plans abortion BEFORE a pregnancy. But they certainly might plan it AFTER the pregnancy has begun. If you let a jar of semen sit there for any length of time, will it become a sentient human being? If the answer is no, then I don't think it has the "potential for life". Likewise for an egg. Sex should be 99.999% as bad then, because all but two of what you call potential lives eventually die. Personally, I find masturbation disgusting, but who am I to tell people to stop? It doesn't harm anyone, so I'm okay with people doing it. Btw, I knew a lot of women who masturbated in high school. Planned parenthood is great, but they need to work on cutting down that "really tiny tiny tteeeeeeeeny tiny percent". It's sort of funny how you talk to me like I know nothing of the topic of procreation. I did take biology in school, although I have forgotten some of the more trivial facts about things the average person doesn't know exist. Whatever your opinion on abortion is, these statistics are quite shocking. There doesn't seem to be much 'bad-luck' in abortions (indicated by only 13% of pill users and 14% of condom users reported correct use), the statistics clearly show that abortion is primarily used as a primary form of birth control, most don't seem bothered in trying to have consistent 'safe sex'. AMEN! If you don't use the f****** birth control correctly, you're going to get pregnant!!! I disagree that they are using it as primary BC, but it definitely is becoming a safety net for some people. What jeskill said is true in my opinion.
Phi for All Posted October 13, 2012 Posted October 13, 2012 An aborted fetus was ABORTED when it DID fit my description of having the potential for life, which is why I find it wrong. Oh come on, we've been over this part too. "Potential for life" isn't a good enough reason to deny women the right to abortion. Imagine I used some of my cellular material to clone myself. I've started the process, so the cellular material (which always represented the potential for life anyway) is now viable and developing. Cloning is really little different than a single egg splitting into twins, and you can't say it's unnatural because humans are part of nature, as is everything we can devise. Are you going to tell me I don't have the right to stop the development of that clone? That somehow it has personhood and rights that supersede my own? And if I do have that right, then all your reasoning about abortion is nothing more than a Puritanical attitude towards sex and reproduction, trying to condemn women as sluts for enjoying sex while pretending it's all about responsible male integrity. 1
chilled_fluorine Posted October 14, 2012 Author Posted October 14, 2012 Oh come on, we've been over this part too. "Potential for life" isn't a good enough reason to deny women the right to abortion. Imagine I used some of my cellular material to clone myself. I've started the process, so the cellular material (which always represented the potential for life anyway) is now viable and developing. Cloning is really little different than a single egg splitting into twins, and you can't say it's unnatural because humans are part of nature, as is everything we can devise. Are you going to tell me I don't have the right to stop the development of that clone? That somehow it has personhood and rights that supersede my own? And if I do have that right, then all your reasoning about abortion is nothing more than a Puritanical attitude towards sex and reproduction, trying to condemn women as sluts for enjoying sex while pretending it's all about responsible male integrity. You, sound really pissed off. I'm going to start off by saying human cloning is just fiction with today's science. Your idea of nature sounds pretty messed up to me. I'll revise my statement to say that if something is naturally conceived and will develop into life on its own, it has the potential for life. Except maybe a pregnancy clinic, but people naturally masturbate. The clone wouldn't develop into sentient life if left to it's own anyways, it would require constant unnatural support, but I think the clone should get a chance to live, if it is more than just a couple cells in a petri dish. One could argue that this particular piece of DNA already exists in an organism, but that would result in some pretty angry identical twins. I would be okay with killing the clone, IF it was never intended to be grown into a sentient human, and IF it wasn't anywhere close to looking like a baby. A scientific experiment is simply different than a naturally conceived baby. Your cellular material would NOT develop into another sentient being if it was simply left as it was, and then to natural processes. Btw, I'm fine with sluts, as long as they use birth control properly and regularly. Ooh, I'm a puritant now? I can't remember the last time I heard that word. It's funny how nerds talk, when they're pissed off. But it's not funny how hurtful their insults are... :sobs: Don't be such a bully. I might have to hang myself because I'm so depressed now. Lol. -2
Villain Posted October 15, 2012 Posted October 15, 2012 This doesn't make sense. If, let's say, someone has an abortion afther they use the pill for a number of years, but forgets to take it one day and gets pregnant, then how are they using abortion as the primary form of birth control? Likewise, if a woman gets an abortion after a condom breaks, how are they using abortion as a primary form of birth control? I'm not going to argue about what is meant by inconsistent use of the pill, I don't think your example is very accurate though. As for the condom breaking, I see no reason for it to be considered as misuse. I mean, I agree with the idea that contraceptive education is integral to making abortions rarer (something that, ironically, many anti-abortion advocates are against), but I don't see how not using contraceptives correctly suggests that people are using abortion as a primary form of birth control. I don't even think you could say that the 33% of women who consider themselves at low risk for pregnancy would consider themselves using abortion as a primary form of BC. I know of one such woman -- she was told that her medical condition would prohibit her from getting pregnant and was very surprised when it happened. Believe me, if she had thought she could have gotten pregnant, she would have used birth control. (She went on it afterwards.) I would consider the act of driving a car 'low risk' as well but that doesn't mean that I don't put my safety belt on. 'Low risk' means that there is still risk involved and that risk happens to be a potential human being.
jeskill Posted October 15, 2012 Posted October 15, 2012 I'm not going to argue about what is meant by inconsistent use of the pill, I don't think your example is very accurate though. Au contraire: It's pretty accurate: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/17162311 METHODS: The incidence of inconsistent pill use was estimated from data from a random sample of 1,234 pill users who participated in a French population-based survey in 2000. Multivariate logistic regressions were used to identify the social, demographic and situational characteristics associated with inconsistent use. RESULTS: Twenty percent of women missed at least one pill during the four weeks prior to the interview, 7% missed two or more pills, and 10% missed at least one pill without using contraceptive backup during subsequent sexual intercourse. Inconsistent pill use was related to situational characteristics that are likely to change over time. The odds of having missed pills were elevated among women whose last intercourse had been with an occasional partner or who had small children. Women who did not have a daily pill-taking routine also had elevated odds of inconsistent use. The likelihood of having missed a pill and not used contraceptive backup was elevated among women who felt they had not been involved in the choice of contraceptive method prescribed by their physician. As for the condom breaking, I see no reason for it to be considered as misuse. It is my understanding that, besides a manufacturing defect, a condom can also break if it's past its expiry date or if the user accidentally tears the condom while opening the package without noticing. Those, IMO, constitute misuse of a condom. I would consider the act of driving a car 'low risk' as well but that doesn't mean that I don't put my safety belt on. 'Low risk' means that there is still risk involved and that risk happens to be a potential human being. How does this statement further your argument that abortion is mostly used as a primary form of birth control?
Villain Posted October 16, 2012 Posted October 16, 2012 Au contraire: It's pretty accurate: http://www.ncbi.nlm....pubmed/17162311 [/b] It is my understanding that, besides a manufacturing defect, a condom can also break if it's past its expiry date or if the user accidentally tears the condom while opening the package without noticing. Those, IMO, constitute misuse of a condom. How does this statement further your argument that abortion is mostly used as a primary form of birth control? The link is of no relevance to the figures that were stated. The figures are referenced from here: http://www.guttmacher.org/pubs/journals/3429402.html They provide an easier to read tables here: http://www.guttmacher.org/tables/3429402t.html#t2 The relevant figures to the pill and male condom can be seen on table 6: 45.1% of pills user's: forgot to take pills (there is no further explanation of what 'forgot to take pills' means but there is a plural to the category which suggest that it is not a one time incident). 41.6% of condom user's: Condom broke/slipped (this does not provide reasons for breaking or slipping and therefore doesn't imply user or manufacture negligence). From your last question I assume that you are under the impression that the people of whom the statistics speak were unaware that having sex could lead to pregnancy. Is that correct?
jeskill Posted October 21, 2012 Posted October 21, 2012 The link is of no relevance to the figures that were stated. They're relevant in the sense that they provide a secondary citation supporting my argument that "inconsistent use of pill" means women forgot to take a pill once or twice in a cycle. From your last question I assume that you are under the impression that the people of whom the statistics speak were unaware that having sex could lead to pregnancy. Is that correct? In some cases, yes. If a woman thinks she's a low risk for pregnancy (whether or not that's correct is another matter), then she is unaware that sex, at least in her case, could lead to pregnancy. Listen, it seems both of us agree on one thing. That is, these numbers strongly suggest that improvements in contraceptive use would decrease the number of abortions. I just don't agree that ignorance about contraceptives means "people are using abortion as their primary form of birth control". If that were the case, then individual women would be having multiple abortions in their lifetimes. Here is an article that discusses repeat abortions. p11: Researchers have estimated that if a woman was continuously sexually active, did not use contraceptives and did not want any children, she would need to have more than 30 abortions in her lifetime ... p11: Christopher Tietze was one of the first researchers to examine repeat abortion, and his work demonstrated that repeat abortions would occur even among populations with high levels of contraceptive use.... <statistics in this section, if you're interested > ....Thirty years after Roe v. Wade, the proportion of abortions that were repeat procedures (45–48%, depending on the data source) was in the middle of Tietze’s predicted range for 1983, suggesting that most women accessing abortion services are using contraception rather consistently. <bolded by me> There's also some discussion concerning the socio-economic demographics of women who have repeat abortions, if you're interested. Anyways, the numbers we've been discussing suggest to me that education about the proper use of contraceptives is lacking, and that people need to be educated about the efficacy of different methods. Hence, it means better sex education is key. 1
Anders Hoveland Posted October 21, 2012 Posted October 21, 2012 The quickest and easiest way to justify murder is to establish the "non-humanity" of the intended victim. That is exactly what abortionists are doing to the fetus. How many unborn babies will continue to be tossed onto the altar of "women's rights" ? Barrack Obama summed up the Liberal mentality best when he said abortion would "ensure that our daughters have the same rights, freedoms, and opportunities as our sons to fulfill their dreams." In other words, the baby gets in the way of women's equality, so it has to go! About his own two daughters, Obama said "if they make a mistake, I don't want them punished with a baby". That's what a baby is apparently — a punishment.
Phi for All Posted October 21, 2012 Posted October 21, 2012 Barrack Obama summed up the Liberal mentality best when he said abortion would "ensure that our daughters have the same rights, freedoms, and opportunities as our sons to fulfill their dreams." In other words, the baby gets in the way of women's equality, so it has to go! About his own two daughters, Obama said "if they make a mistake, I don't want them punished with a baby". That's what a baby is apparently — a punishment. This is such a cheap argument. Not all pregnancies are aborted, not all are unwanted, not all babies would be a punishment, so please don't try to push that strawman on us. The facts remain that bringing a child into the world and caring for it is a completely different prospect for every person in the country, while the need for intimacy is very basic. It's ridiculous to expect that every child conceived be brought to term. Abortions will happen whether we want them to or not, so we need to make sure they're done safely. 1
mooeypoo Posted October 22, 2012 Posted October 22, 2012 The quickest and easiest way to justify murder is to establish the "non-humanity" of the intended victim. That is exactly what abortionists are doing to the fetus. How many unborn babies will continue to be tossed onto the altar of "women's rights" ? Barrack Obama summed up the Liberal mentality best when he said abortion would "ensure that our daughters have the same rights, freedoms, and opportunities as our sons to fulfill their dreams." In other words, the baby gets in the way of women's equality, so it has to go! About his own two daughters, Obama said "if they make a mistake, I don't want them punished with a baby". That's what a baby is apparently — a punishment. Science seems to establish quite well that a blastocyst isn't life. That makes it nonlife, which makes your argument moot by definition. There's no need to go into your blatant disregard for proper discussion by strawmanning the argument to fit your own goals, you've already lost it in the first sentence. Are we going to have a logical argument about this, or are you just going to spit on us and call us murders until we give up on the thread completely? 2
smithsmith Posted October 22, 2012 Posted October 22, 2012 (edited) If the fetus is capable of suffering what gives the mother the right to inflict suffering? Edited October 22, 2012 by smithsmith
Phi for All Posted October 22, 2012 Posted October 22, 2012 If the fetus is capable of suffering what gives the mother the right to inflict suffering? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neonatal_perception The accepted hypothesis of the means by which pain is perceived states that it requires certain physical structures and operations. These are not formed in fetuses until 30 weeks or more. The consensus of the scientific community at this time is that only fetuses of this age or older are capable of perceiving pain. Most abortions happen well before 30 weeks.
mooeypoo Posted October 22, 2012 Posted October 22, 2012 If the fetus is capable of suffering what gives the mother the right to inflict suffering? "Fetus" can only feel pain around 35 weeks after conception, or around 2-4 weeks before delivery. http://abcnews.go.com/Health/fetus-feels-pain-37-weeks-study/story?id=14472566#.UIThr8XYFnE Which means the fetus does not feel pain during the time that is viable for abortion, the mother does not inflict suffering, and hence, your claim is irrelevant.
smithsmith Posted October 22, 2012 Posted October 22, 2012 (edited) The number seems to vary. http://www.guardian....o-pain-24-weeks - 24 weeks http://www.msnbc.msn...hird-trimester/ - around 28 weeks (third trimester) Whatever the figure is, it is certainly not as soon as the baby is given birth to, so can we agree that late term abortion is unethical."late term" being defined as after the fetus is capable of suffering. agree? (Given that the mother's life is not at risk and that the pregnancy is not a result of rape). Edited October 22, 2012 by smithsmith
mooeypoo Posted October 22, 2012 Posted October 22, 2012 The number seems to vary. http://www.guardian....o-pain-24-weeks - 24 weeks http://www.msnbc.msn...hird-trimester/ - around 28 weeks (third trimester) Whatever the figure is, it is certainly not as soon as the baby is given birth to, so can we agree that late term abortion is unethical."late term" being defined as after the fetus is capable of suffering. agree? (Given that the mother's life is not at risk and that the pregnancy is not a result of rape). Okay, sure. Then again, late-term abortions are a different issue in the ethical discussion here as well as in the law for that exact reason. I, for one, am pro choice, but am not too quick to be pro late-term-abortion. Those should be decided STRICTLY by medical opinion in case there's severe potential harm to the woman or baby otherwise (and barring any *very* special circumstances I might not be able to foresee, and why courts and medical committees are for). So.. early-term abortion is exempt from this 'baby is suffering' issue. Would that mean we can agree it's the woman's choice?
Phi for All Posted October 23, 2012 Posted October 23, 2012 Whatever the figure is, it is certainly not as soon as the baby is given birth to, so can we agree that late term abortion is unethical."late term" being defined as after the fetus is capable of suffering. agree? (Given that the mother's life is not at risk and that the pregnancy is not a result of rape). I also feel late term abortion needs to be for medical reasons. AFAIC, if a pregnancy is the result of rape and the woman has kept the fetus till the late term, the reasons for abortion due to rape are long gone. I'm perfectly OK with setting an arbitrary but logical time limit. We need to give women the right to have an abortion, and we need to give them time to decide. 24 weeks seems to work well. 1
jeskill Posted October 30, 2012 Posted October 30, 2012 In related news, a very interesting blog post has caught fire somewhat and been making the rounds: I was raised in the sort of evangelical family where abortion is the number one political issue. I grew up believing that abortion was murder, and when I stopped identifying as pro-life I still believed that. Why, then, did I stop identifying as pro-life? Quite simply, I learned that increasing contraceptive use, not banning abortion, was the key to decreasing the number of abortions. You can read the rest here. One more quote: As I sat there in the student union reading over my lunch, I found that making birth control widespread and easily accessible is actually the most effective way to decrease the abortion rate. Even as I processed this fact, I knew that the pro-life movement as a whole generally opposes things like comprehensive sex education and making birth control available to teenagers. I knew this because I had lived it, had heard it in pro-life banquet after pro-life banquet, had read it in the literature. The pro-life movement is anti-birth-control. And opposing birth control is pretty much the most ineffective way to decrease abortion rates imaginable. In fact, opposing birth control actually drives the abortion rates up. The author's name is Libby Anne, FYI. 3
imatfaal Posted November 1, 2012 Posted November 1, 2012 In related news, a very interesting blog post has caught fire somewhat and been making the rounds: You can read the rest here. One more quote: The author's name is Libby Anne, FYI. Nice and honest blog post from Libby Anne - thanks for reposting. It is truly worrying that it all makes much more sense if you remove the propaganda and view it as a huge conspiracy to subjugate half the population, "keep women in their place", and exert control through the regulation of sex. There is a concerted movement towards the demonization of female sexual liberation, and re-establishment of the male ownership of sex 1
Moontanman Posted November 1, 2012 Posted November 1, 2012 In related news, a very interesting blog post has caught fire somewhat and been making the rounds: You can read the rest here. One more quote: The author's name is Libby Anne, FYI. Very good find jeskill, the anti birth control people have long used abortion as a smokescreen for their real agenda. This anti birth control movement has been going on a long time 100 years ago the movement was a bit more direct, possession of condoms being illegal even for married people. Thank you again for providing this thread with an honest view of what is really going on.
jeskill Posted November 1, 2012 Posted November 1, 2012 Thank Libby Anne. That was one of the most well-thought out pieces on abortion I've read. Her discussions about the Quiverfull movement are also compelling.
randomc Posted November 1, 2012 Posted November 1, 2012 Is it really feasible to talk about abortion as part of an agenda to subjugate women? A quick perusal of the GSS shows women to be about 50:50 on abortion. ESDS (UK general social survey) unfortunately requires registration from an institution (which says it all about the UK). Anyway, you guys are treating the underclasses as pets, as is usual with social lefties.
jeskill Posted November 2, 2012 Posted November 2, 2012 Is it really feasible to talk about abortion as part of an agenda to subjugate women? I guess you didn't read the article? A quick perusal of the GSS shows women to be about 50:50 on abortion. Well, 80 % of people don't think of themselves as feminists according to these same surveys. If you can't see the patriarchy, how are you going to be able to see the relationship between the pro-life agenda and the anti-contraception agenda? This is the perfect time to throw this in. Anyway, you guys are treating the underclasses as pets, as is usual with social lefties. And I see you've resorted to an ad hominim fallacy in lieu of an actual rebuttal based on evidence. 3
randomc Posted November 2, 2012 Posted November 2, 2012 I guess you didn't read the article? Look, the blog post argues against the pro-life movement very succesfully, my point is merely that to take this as an indication of an agenda to subjugate women is ridiculous. Well, 80 % of people don't think of themselves as feminists according to these same surveys. If you can't see the patriarchy, how are you going to be able to see the relationship between the pro-life agenda and the anti-contraception agenda? That's an interesting point. How do you measure gender dominance amongst the working classes? Does anybody even bother to do it - i would say not, maybe it's been done. Anyway ,the gender equality discussion seems to me very much focused on the elite. And I see you've resorted to an ad hominim fallacy in lieu of an actual rebuttal based on evidence. I suppose i did. There again, you demand rebuttal based on evidence, but don't provide actual evidence of a plot to subjugate women (per imatfaal/moontanman). Just an anecdotal blog post.
Moontanman Posted November 2, 2012 Posted November 2, 2012 There again, you demand rebuttal based on evidence, but don't provide actual evidence of a plot to subjugate women (per imatfaal/moontanman). Just an anecdotal blog post. Would you care to show exactly where I said there was a plot to subjugate women?
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now