Uh, one in 200,000?
Well, Bryan Ekers bet me to it, but the odds of that happening are precisely 1 in 200,000, just like I calculated. That’s how probabilities work, after all.
My point was that abstaining during those few days is not a 100% effective birth control method. In fact, the failure rate is even higher than that for condoms.
Huh 
? What you proposed above, “abstain from penile contact during and near ovulation time”, is the rhythm method. In fact, you mentioned abstaining from sex for 4 days a month. However, the average fertile period is 6 - 8 days, so not only are you using the rhythm method, you are using it incorrectly (unless you have a significantly shorter menstrual cycle than average).
Actually, the probability of becoming pregnant while using the rhythm method is pretty high (compared to the pill, or sterilization). It is certainly non-zero.
With the newest version, it’s around 4.8% and I think that’s per year of use.
Abortion is going to happen, whether inside the law or out. I am a hard-core pro-life person who would take away your right to choose, in a heart-beat if I could. But, I would only be taking away your legal right, not stopping abortion; so there’s no point. Properly used birth control would limit this to a larger extent. But that’s a lifestyle choice. I can’t make you do that either. I feel like it’s my right not to help fund abortion through my tax dollars. It’s my duty to help fund the welfare system and have no complaints if there is extra burden put on it, due to decisions to give birth, rather than abort. The statistics for repeat abortions are very high. That tells me something right there. An abortion should be a hard decision and the odds of your contraception failing multiple times must be very slim.
Although I hate the whole concept of abortion, I would be there to hold a friends hand if necessary, after I tried to change her mind. I wouldn’t vote against abortion, as much as I hate it, because I do have compassion. What I wonder is how many people have gone ahead and gave birth to an “unwanted” child, and can’t imagine their life without them now.
I know more than one person like that.
Something else to consider in the discussion about sterilization is that it’s often damn-near impossible to have it done if you haven’t already had kids. It’s not like I can just ask my gyno to sterilize me and have her ask if Tuesday or Wednesday is better for me. It was an uphill battle to get an IUD because (this is rich, really) there’s a miniscule risk it might impair the fertility I never intend to use. Same situation for childless men wanting vasectomies. The younger you are, the harder it is. The failure rate of sterilization is a moot point if no one will sterilize you.
The only 100% effective birth control is to never, ever engage in any sort of sexual contact. Anything that might result in semen being spilled carries the risk of it getting spread to the vulva, and all it takes is one sperm. I don’t know about anyone else, but I’m not willing to go through my marriage never having any sexual contact with my husband.
You understand, don’t you, that this logic applies to burglary, murder, rape–any prohibited activity you can think of. Based on this particular point of logic, and since making rape illegal has not eliminated rape, should we repeal the laws prohibiting this act?
Saying that an abortion ban will not eliminate abortions is NOT the same as saying that an abortion ban won’t significantly reduce the number of abortions.
An egg can be unfertilized if it was never fertilized. Un is a modifier meaning not, not a modifier meaning reversed.
An unfertilized egg will not implant. Every unfertilized egg that does not implant is a waste of a potential human life.
(As is every sperm)
Therefore, to preserve all potential life, every egg must be fertilized and implanted.
That’s a pro-life argument, innit?
Not held by anyone, I hope.
Edlyn: So what you’re saying is that every woman, if something happens, and she becomes pregnant for some reason, should put her body through the equivalent of nine months of medical proceedures of no small risk to her health and well being and position in society, alterations to her very self image and form, and then give the result away.
Why should she do that? It’s a heck of investment of her life. Could destroy her social life, her romantic life, and even her economic life, just to give something away that she didn’t want in the first place.
Why should she not have the option to say no? It’s her body. She can pierce it if she wants to. She can get fat or skinny if she wants to. Why shouldn’t she be pregnant or not as she so chooses?
The difference is that abortion doesn’t hurt anybody and banning it does.
Gosh…good thing we’ve all reached a consenus on that “fact”.
Guess the debate is over then.
:rolleyes:
Making abortion illegal does not prevent abortion it simply creates more victims (even if you believe a blood clot can be a victim).
The choice is not whether women will get abortions or not but whether they will get safe abortions or unsafe abortions. That’s not even a choice.
I’m old enough to remember what it was like before it was legal, just barely. If you were lucky enough to be born into the right family, unplanned pregnancy meant a little trip and maybe some shopping after if you did the right thing. For the person who’s economic situation was average to poor, it meant a) Trying to find a “doctor” that will take care of it, often at great risk or **b)**having a baby you couldn’t afford to take care of, ever. I also remember not being sexually active, slipping up once, not even really “doing it”. Technically probably still even a virgin. Suddenly I was an unmarried pregnant teen, with everything it implied then. I remember the mind numbing terror, the panic, the grief at knowing how disappointed my parents would be and that my dreams of being a lawyer were gone. Abortion wasn’t legal til the following year, but I can honestly say, it never crossed my mind. What did cross my mind were things like almost hoping I would have a fatal accident, so no one would have to know, or running away, although I had no where to go. Mostly panic, complete panic. But, from the first moment I felt my son flutter inside me, I was in love with him, so strongly I was stunned by those feelings too. After hiding my pregnancy for almost seven months, I did what poor people did in those days. I got married. Ten years later, with three children and a failed marriage, I spent the next 10 years barely avoiding the humiliation of having to ask for help. On the up side, my life, while at times a struggle, has been so full of happiness, I wouldn’t change a thing. I have been incredibly lucky. And it taught me compassion.
So, to answer your question, a law against abortion will possibly limit the number of abortions, but put lower income pregnant women at a higher risk for death and injury during illegal abortions and the law would be hypocritical because it would only impact certain people. I care about the women too, not just the babies. I would stop abortion if I could, but not under these terms.
DtC I don’t agree that abortion doesn’t hurt anyone. Since I don’t think death is forever, I don’t really worry about the babies. But, I’ve known enough women who did have a lot of saddness and regret and who always remembered how old their child would have been. I’m sure all women don’t feel that way, but some feel the loss for the rest of their lives. I don’t really think of the babies as victims, but sometimes the mom is.
“WELL IF NOT YOU HAVE NO RIGHT TO YOUR OPINION”
Everyone has a right to their opinion no matter what the circumstances. Even if that opinion is grossly uninformed, you cannot tell someone not to have it. Please leave the county immediately.
Nonsense. Whether or not women will get safe abortions is NOT the only variable associated with an abortion ban. How could an abortion ban possibly avoid significantly reducing the number of abortions? So, from a pro-life perspective, whether there are more “victims” resulting from a ban on abortions is clearly debatable.
Do you hold the same concern for all laws that do not impact everyone equally? Do you wish that laws against mugging were repealed, since they undoubtedly affect the lowest economic stratum of our society most significantly? There have certainly been murders committed by poor and desperate people, individuals who felt they had no alternative, lost souls whose circumstances placed them in a vastly different and meaner universe than that of the rich. Should we not prohibit murder?
Where does this notion collapse of its own weight? At what point do we determine that there are certain axiomatically good and evil acts, and that we should hold people accountable for their own decisions, even when making the “right” decision is more difficult for some?
I can’t say that I particularly disagree with you. But when the government gets into our rights as far as reproduction, then how far does it go? For instance, if it is determined that abortion in the first 8 weeks is illegal, then why is it not illegal to have an IUD. Intra-uterine devices allow fertilization, but make the uterus hostile to implantation. So, in effect; the woman who has an IUD could be aborting on a very regular basis. Should IUD’s be illegal? I had an IUD, so I am guilty too. I didn’t understand how they worked and actually, mine didn’t (it’s a girl!), that was my second unplanned baby. Say you use condoms and spermicide (it’s another girl!:)). Your condom leaks and the sperm actually manages to penetrate the egg and then dies a grusome death from poisoning before the embryo starts growing. Okay, enough examples, you get the idea.
I do understand what you’re saying and if you want to compare abortion to crime committed by poor desperate people, I will. The laws don’t stop the crime committed by someone who feels he has no other alternative. Making more and tougher laws for crime isn’t the answer. The decent, compassionate answer is to do more to help people out of desperate circumstances. Personally help, which many people aren’t willing to do. This applies for the mugger or the young girl who hasn’t become pregnant yet. Figure out ways to prevent the problem, rather than punish people for being human. Don’t self-righteously condemn people after the fact. And keep in mind part of the people you’re condemning, honestly do feel like they’re doing the right thing. That abortion is legal and frequently utilized says that there are a lot of people who don’t feel like this is an evil act.
**There are laws prohibiting certain acts. Then there are programs to help people who might otherwise have committed those acts. The two are not mutually exclusive. We can and should have both. Are you suggesting we must do one or the other, but we can’t do both?
Sorry, but I think you’re dodging the prior question. If you feel this way, do you oppose laws against mugging? Shouldn’t all our efforts go toward helping the poor who are inclined to behave in such a desperate manner? I’m asking you how consistently you apply this philosophy, or whether it permits abortions only out of all the acts you personally find wrong.
Yes, that’s true. Abortion is a singular act. That does not change its consequences, however.
I take it then, that we have you on the record for decriminalizing shoplifting.?
Can you tell us what other “crimes” you wish to decriminalize?
Armed robbery?
Spousal abuse, maybe?
Rape?
Arson?
Carjacking?
serial killings?
None of the perps should be “self righteously condemned”, correct? (you’ve already said we shouldn’t “self righteously condemn” a mugger…correct…we should take pity on him and deal with his personal problems instead?)
Whoever it was, it’s a great slogan, but devoid of intellectual content to the point that it’s only useful for preaching to the choir. I’m not dead sure how I even ought to parse the statement, since it’s idiotic in the first place (if men could get pregnant, they would be women), but perhaps it ought to read: “If power resided in female hands instead of male, we would get all the abortions we want, since male-run society ensures that men qua men get all they want of everything else.” (The “we” assumes that the speaker is female, of course.)
A moment’s thought shows this to be palpably untrue, of course, since there are many laws that prohibit men from doing exactly what they want, and comparatively few laws that exist solely in order to give men something for nothing. So perhaps I ought to strike out the “everything else” clause and restrict the statement a little:
“…since men get exactly the reproductive rights they want”. And unfortunately for our slogan this is also a thorough-going lie. I’ll leave the details of this as an exercise for the student. The answer should mention men’s right to initiate a pregnancy, require the abortion of an unwanted child, or forbid the abortion of a wanted child, and may pay some attention to their post-partum rights into the bargain.
The slogan of course was never intended to be intellectually meaningful, and it over-simplifies the debate to a simple “men-deny-women-abortions” soundbite, neglecting the pro-abortion men and anti-abortion women, both of whom are sizeable groups. Also of course, everyone with an ounce of sense knows this very well, but it does get on my tits when I see someone like chicksdigcars parrotting such tripe.
/rant.
/me strikes the phrase “of course” from his vocabulary!